


.» 

o 



7 : ^ v ^ 






;• V ^ 






^<6 ^ 






fefc ^/ -'2&: V* :S&-. I 













/ y 










^V> 






^°» 




» ^. 













r« a < 




V »!*•- * 




> 



* v 



>°^ 







-•iq* 



•" •>* 




*♦.••■•• <v 




. v 



V*--\*° 



c*** 






i^L'* 



^ ^ 














^°- 



0*..- •••„©, * ' * m M&L* + <* *jk 







»!«.'.»"• 



THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPALIANS 

TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 

INDEFENSIBLE: 

WITH AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIVINE RIGHT OF 

EPISCOPACY AND THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: 

IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO THE REV. DR. PUSET. 
/ 

By JOHN BROWN, D. D. 

MINISTER OF LANGTON, BERWICKSHIRE. 



TO WHICH IS PREFIXED 



n 

AN ARTICLE ON THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION 

Erom the Edinburgh Presbyterian Review. 

1180 

PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 

Paul T. Jones, Publishing Agent. 

1844. 



**.*>* 

-£%<? 



Printed by 
WM. s. MART1EN. 



THE 

ANGLICAN REFORMATION.* 



The origin of Puritan nonconformity,! its ample war- 
rant, and complete justification, will be found in the 
character and proceedings of Queen Elizabeth, the 
principles on which the Anglican Church was at first 
based, and the means by which it was finally esta- 
blished. 

Elizabeth was one of those persons whose character 
it is difficult to portray, because it consisted of ele- 
ments apparently irreconcilable. She possessed the 
peculiar characteristics of both sexes in almost equal 
proportions. She had all the masculine energy and 
enlarged capacity of a strong-minded man, with all 
the caprice, vanity, and obstinacy of a weak-minded 
woman; while the circumstances in which she was 
placed had a direct tendency to develope and mature 
all the elements of her character. She was suspi- 
cious by nature, by education, and by necessity, and 
despotic by temperament, by habit, and by policy. 
Thoroughly and intensely selfish, she made all the 
•means within her reach minister to her own interests; 
utterly insensible to the miseries she might occasion 
to the instruments of her will, or the objects of her 

* The article on the Anglican Reformation is from the Presby- 
terian Review of January, 1843. 

t Puritans and nonconformists were, at first, the common titles of 
those who were subsequently called Presbyterians, while Brownites, 
sectaries, and separatists, were the ordinary appellations of those who 
are now called Independents. See Pierce's Vindication of the Dis- 
senters, pp. 147, 189, 205, 6, 213, 215, 223. Hanbury's EccL Me- 
morials of Independents, i. 3, 5, et passim. 



IV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

policy.* Impatient of contradiction, not less from the 
strong than the weak points of her character, she 
quelled, with equal imperiousness, all opposition to 
her will, and crushed a refractory spirit in prelates, 
parliaments, and privy council, in puritans, papists, 
and populace, with as iron a rigour as was ever dis- 
played by Henry VIII. 

It was only by the favourable circumstances in 
which she was placed, and by the dexterity with 
which she regulated her personal deportment, as well 
as her general policy, that such a character, which 
could conciliate no love, enkindle no gratitude, and 
excite no sympathy, could inspire those feelings of 
national homage of which we know she was the ob- 
ject. Her life, to many of her Protestant subjects, 
appeared the only barrier against the return of Popery 
and persecution; and therefore, for their own protec- 
tion, they not only tolerated the strong measures of 
her government, but admired her prudence, and pro- 
moted her plans. Parsimonious to an extreme in 
granting salaries or pensions to her servants from the 
royal treasures, she was munificent in rewarding, if 
not her ministers, at least her minions, by donations 
from the estates of the Church ; and thus she secured 
the applause of those — and they are always a numer- 
ous party — who look more to the value of the gift, 
than the legitimacy of the source whence it is drawn. 
Theatrical, yet imposing, in her carriage ; magnificent, 
though coarse in her tastes; thoroughly English in her 
feelings, and successful in her enterprises, she won 
and retained the admiration of those (always the mass 
in every nation) who are impressed only through 
their senses, judge merely by results, and admire 

* " My good old mistress," says Sir Francis Bacon to King James 
in 1G12, "was wont to call mc her watch candle, because it pleased 
her to say I did continually burn; and yet she suffered me to waste 
almost to nothing." (Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog. iv. 70, n.) She kept 
Sir Francis Walsingharn at Paris, because she found him serviceable 
to her purposes, till his health was completely shattered, and his for- 
tune utterly impoverished; nor could all his petitions and representa- 
tions to herself and her council, obtain either an accession to bis 
income, a respite to his labours, or a recall from his embassy. See 
Strype's Annals, iii. 339, 340. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. V 

power and splendour, without looking too curiously 
into the source whence the one is derived, or the ob- 
jects to which the other is directed. It was part of 
her policy not to demand taxes from her parliaments, 
lest they might attempt to canvass her measures, and 
control her proceedings;* while from the very same 
policy she directed the most judicious efforts to enlarge 
the wealth and the prosperity of the kingdom ; and all 
this had, of course, the very strongest tendency to 
increase her general popularity. It must have been 
from sources such as these that so much of admiration 
was lavished upon one who never uttered one amiable 
sentiment, and never performed one generous deed. 

It is not less difficult to estimate Elizabeth's reli- 
gious character, than to do justice to her personal and 
political life. During her sister's reign, she regularly 
attended confession and mass, and conformed to all 
the ritual observances of Popery.t Nor was this 
merely from policy, or from a desire to escape perse- 
cution from that ferocious bigot, who was well known 
to cherish no sisterly regard towards her; for after 
her accession to the throne, she continued to pray to 
the Virgin Mary, and, as we shall see, maintained 
many of the peculiar doctrines of Romanism. She 
believed in the real presence, which, as then under- 
stood, was synonymous with transubstantiation,J pub- 
licly censured a preacher, who preached against it in 
her presence, and praised another who preached in 
its favour. The people, in the sudden ebullition of 
their joy, at what they conceived the downfall of Ro- 
manism, pulled down the rood lofts, broke in pieces 
altars and images, and burnt up the pictures and cruci- 
fixes, which, in the days of their ignorance, they had 
worshipped. § Elizabeth, however, indignant at such 
sacrilege, ordered these appendages of idolatry to be 
restored; and it was only after the most strenuous 
exertions of her prelates and counsellors, she could be 
induced to yield to their removal. || But although she 

* Bishop Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England. 
2d edit Sect. 429, 467. 
t Btrype'a Annals, i. 2. X Ibid. 2, 3. § Ibid. 260—2. 

U Ibid. 237, 241. There is a singular letter from Jewell to Peter 



VI THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

gave a reluctant assent to have them removed from 
the churches, she still retained a crucifix, with tapers 
burning before it, upon the altar in her own private 
chapel. Against this open idolatry, all her prelates, 
not even Cox excepted, remonstrated in a style of 
very unusual vehemence; and in terms the most 
obsequious, yet firm, they begged leave to decline 
officiating in her majesty's chapel until the abomina- 
tion was removed. For the moment she seems to 
have given way to the storm. But she soon recovered 
her obstinate determination in favour of her crucifix 
and lighted tapers, — restored them to their former 
place upon the altar,* — and there they remained at 
least as late as 1572.t Nor were these badges of 
idolatry retained merely as ornaments. Strype in- 
forms us distinctly, that " she and her nobles used to 
give honour to them.":}: Nor could it be any ambi- 

Martyr, (Burnet's Hist. Ref. Records., Bk. vi. No. 60,) dated 4th Feb. 
1560, beginning, "O my father, what shall I write thee?" in which 
he says, " That controversy about crosses (in Churches) is now hot 
amongst us. You can scarcely believe in so silly a matter, how men, 
who seemed rational, play the fool. Of these the only one you know 
is Cox. To-morrow a disputation is appointed to take place upon this 
matter. Some members of parliament are chosen arbitrators. The 
disputants are, in favour of crosses, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
(Parker) and Cox; against them, Grindal (Bisbop of London) and 
myself. The result lies at the mercy of our judges. However, I 
laugh when I think with what, and how grave and solid arguments 
they shall defend their paltry crosses. I shall write you the result, 
however it may go. At present the cause is in dependance. How- 
ever, so far as I can divine, this is the last letter you shall receive 
from me as a bishop, for the matter is come to that pass, that we must 
cither take back those crosses of silver and pewter, which we have 
broken, or resign our bishopricks." 

* In 1570. Strype's Parker, ii. 35, 36. 

t Strype, speaking of the year 1565, says, " The queen still, to this 
year, kept the crucifix in her chapel." Annals, i. ii. 198. Again, 
" I find the queen's chapel stood in statu quo seven years after." 
Ibid. 200. Cartwright also mentions the fact in his " Admonition 
to Parliament," published in 1570. Parker exerted himself strenu- 
ously, but in vain, against this nuisance. Strype's Parker, i. 92. 
The encouragement which this attachment of the queen to some of 
the grossest errors of their system gave the papists, may be inferred 
from the fact, that a popish priest, in 1564, dedicated to her a work 
in defence of the crucifix being retained and worshipped as before. 
Strype's An. i. 260-2. 

t Strype's An. i. 259, 260. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Vll 

guous manifestation of popeiy and idolatry, which 
could extract from Cox that long and urgent declina- 
ture to officiate in her chapel, in which he says, " I 
most humbly sue unto your godly zeal, prostrate and 
with wet eyes, that ye will vouchsafe to peruse the 
considerations which move me, that I dare not minis- 
ter in your grace's chapel, the lights and cross remain- 
ing."* 

But although Elizabeth was thus obstinate in fa- 
vour of these " dregs of Popery," and " relics of the 
Amorites," as Jewell termed them, she had not even 
the semblance of personal religion. Those members 
of the Church of England who are favourable to pro- 
testantism, and yet feel that their Church is identified 
with the Church of Elizabeth, may, as a matter of 
course, be expected to portray her both as Protestant 
and pious; and this has been done to an extent which, 
in our mind, has rendered every history of Elizabeth, 
by members of the Anglican Church, altogether un- 
worthy of credit, except simply when they state facts, 
and give their authority for them. Even Strype, so 
favourably distinguished for veracity and candour, 
exerts himself to write a panegyric on* Elizabeth, 
although the facts which he is too honest to conceal, 
jar oddly enough with his praises; and although also, 
occasional expressions drop unguardedly from his pen, 
which show how dissatisfied he was with the per- 
sonal character and religion of that queen.' 

" And, indeed," he says, speaking of her religious 
character at her accession, '-what to think of the 
queen at this time as to her religion, one might hesi- 
tate somewhat."t She seldom or never attended 
Church except during Lent, (which she observed, and 
compelled others to observe, with all the formality of 
Rome,) when the best pulpit orators from all parts of 
England were summoned up to preach before her.J 
She, indeed, held the preaching of the gospel not only 
in contempt, but in something bordering upon detesta- 

* Strype's An. i. 260, and Ap. Rec. No. 22. 

+ Annals, i. 2. t Strype's Parker, i. 401. 



Vlll THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

tion, and wished that all her subjects should follow 
her own example in absenting themselves from hear- 
ing sermons. While nine parishes out of every ten 
throughout the kingdom were destitute of a preaching 
ministry, she commanded Grindal, in 1 576, to diminish 
still further the number of preachers, declaring that 
three or four were sufficient for a whole county — 
that preaching did more harm than good, and that, 
consequently, " it was good for the Church to have 
few preachers."* And because he would not obey, 
suppress " the prophesy in gs," and lessen the number 
of preachers, she suspended him from his functions, 
sequestered his revenues, and confined him a prisoner 
to his own house, and it was with some difficulty she 
was restrained from proceeding further against him. 
Grindal's firmness, however, under God, saved Eng- 
land ; for had he yielded to her anti-christian tyranny, 
it is easy to perceive what the result must have been 
upon the moral and spiritual condition of the king- 
dom. 

Nor were her morals more eminent than her piety. 
Without giving more attention than they deserve to the 
scandalous revelations of Lingard, or to the rumours 
which have descended to our own time in secret me- 
moirs, in MSS., and by traditions, it is impossible to 
question that the " virgin queen" hardly deserved the 
epithet of which she was so ambitious.! She indulg- 
ed freely in the pleasures of the table. During her 
annual " progresses," her prelates and nobles, aware 
of her taste for magnificent entertainments, rivalled 
one another in ministering to her gratification. After 
her return from these more than oriental fetes, she 
was generally indisposed, nature exacting her usual 
tribute, not less from the queen, than from more 

* Strypc's Grindal, pp. 328, 329, and Appendix B. ii. No. 0, which 
we recommend to our readers to read throughout. 

t Leicester, in a private letter to Walsingham, while ambassador 
at Paris, speaking of a mysterious illness, by which she was sudden- 
ly seized, says, " That, indeed, she had been troubled with a spice or 
show of the mother." And although he says that, " indeed, it was 
not so," he was too good a courtier, as well as too personally implica. 
ted, to be a trustworthy witness. Strype's An. iii. 319. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. iX 

plebeian gourmands.* She swore most profanely? 
not only in her conversation, but also in her letters, 
and that not only to her profane men, but even to her 
prelates.! 

As Elizabeth did not often attend church, she had 
the more time to desecrate the Sabbath; and while 
the puritans were persecuted for not honouring saints' 
day, she, her nobles and her prelates, profaned the 
day of the Lord. In one of her " progresses," in 
1575, she spent three weeks at Kenilworth, one of 
the seats of her favourite, the Earl of Leicester. A 
contemporary chronicler gives the following account 
of the manner in which two of the Sabbaths spent 
there were desecrated. In the forenoon she went to 
the parish church. But "the afternoon" was spent 
" in excellent music of sundry sweet instruments, and 
in dancing of lords and ladies, and other worshipful 
degrees, with lively agility and commendable grace. 
At night, late after a warning or two," such as Jupi* 
ter's respects to the queen and other heathen masques 
and mummeries, there " were blazes of burning darts 
flying to and fro, beams of stars, coruscant streams, 
and hail of fiery sparks, lightning of wild-fire, in 

* Thus, in 1571, after her return from one of these "progresses," 
"She was taken suddenly sick at her stomach, and as suddenly re- 
lieved by a vomit." Strype's An. iii. 175. 

t Sir John Harrington, giving a description of an interview he 
had with her in 1601, a year or two before her death, says, "She 
swears much at those that cause her griefs in such wise, to the no 
small discomfiture of all about her." Nugae Antiquae, i. 319. We 
owe the following anecdote to the same amusing gossip. Cox of 
Ely having refused to alienate some of the best houses and manors 
of his see to some of her courtiers, notwithstanding of a personal 
command from the queen, received from the indignant Elizabeth the 
following characteristic epistle. " Proud prelate, you know what you 
were before I made you what you are ; if you do not immediately 
comply with my request, by G — d, I will unfrock you. Elizabeth." 
However ludicrous to us, such a mandate must have been anything 
but laughable to the poor bishop of Ely. With a pertinacity, how- 
ever, which would have been sublime, had it been displayed in a 
better cause, Cox preserved to the last the revenues of his see. After 
his death, however, Elizabeth was revenged. She kept the diocese 
vacant for eighteen years, (as she kept Oxford for twenty-two years,) 
and before a succession was appointed, she stripped it so bare, that 
from having been one of the richest, it is now one of the poorest dio- 
ceses in England. 



X THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

water and land, flight and shot of thunder-bolts — all 
with continuance, terror and vehemence, as though 
the heavens thundered, the water scourged, and 
the earth shook. This lasted till after midnight." 
Next Sabbath the same scene was repeated with 
sundry alterations. But, in addition, " this, by the 
kalendar," being " St. Kenelme's day," the genius 
or tutelary god of the place, there " was a solemn 
country bridal, with running at quintal, in honour 
of this Kenihvorth Castle, and of God and St. Ken- 
elme !"* When we bear in mind the manner in 
which the Sabbath has been desecrated in England 
down from the Reformation by princes, peers, and 
prelates, by " Book of Sports," by acts of parliament 
and convocation, and that the only friends of Sab- 
bath observance have been the persecuted puritans, 
the wonder is, not that it should be so grievously 
desecrated, but that any veneration whatever should 
continue to be paid to it. 

Among the manifold forms in which the queen's 
attachment to the "relics of Popery" displayed itself, 
few were so offensive to the clergy as her counten- 
ance of clerical celibacy and her opposition to the 
marriage of the priesthood. In her first parliament 

* Apud Strype's An. ii. i. 584, 585. It may be said in palliation 
of Elizabeth's desecration of the Sabbath, that she only followed the 
example set before her by the primate of all England. Parker hav- 
ing finished a princely dining hall in Iris palace at Canterbury, in 
1565, gave several magnificent entertainments there. " The first," 
says his biographer, " was at Whitsuntide, and lasted three days, 
that is Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday." . . . " His second feast 
was on Trinity Sunday following. . . . The hall was set forth with 
much plate of silver and gold, adorned with rich tapestry of Flanders 
. . . There were dainties of all sorts, both meats and drinks, and in 
great plenty, and all tilings served in excellent order by none but the 
archbishop's servants;" Strype's Parker, i. 376 — 380. It was 
Parker's ambition upon these occasions to rival the fetes given by 
his predecessor Warham to the Emperor Charles V. and Henry VIII., 
and that such important matters might not be lost to posterity, he 
became their historian himself. Ibid. ii. 296, 297. Even when he 
retired to his smallest country residence, Parker's domestic establish- 
ment consisted of about a hundred retainers. Ibid. i. 277. Parker, 
however, was completely outshone by Whitgift, who rivalled Wolsey 
himself. See his Life by " Sir George Paule, comptroller of his 
Grace's household," in Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biography, iv. 
387—9. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XI 

an attempt was made to pass an act to legalize the 
marriage of the clergy, as had been done in the reign 
of her brother, but she would not permit it.* Various 
efforts were made by Cecil, Parker (who was mar- 
ried himself) and others, to induce her, at subsequent 
periods, to yield ; but their attempts only exasperated 
the vestal queen. In 1561, she issued an injunction 
forbidding married clergymen from living with their 
wives within the precincts of colleges or cathedral 
closes, and but for the importunity of Cecil, she would 
have absolutely forbidden the marriage of the clergy. 
When Parker shortly afterwards waited upon her, 
she scolded him with much "bitterness," and spoke 
in such terms not only against clerical matrimony, 
but the whole constitution of the Church of England, 
and threw out such hints of what it was her intention 
to do to remedy the evils she complained of, that, as 
he wrote to Cecil, he expected nothing short of an 
absolute order to restore things to the condition in 
which they stood in the reign of her sister, or, at all 
events, that she would restore so much of popery 
that he could not conform to the Church.t When 
she cooled, however, and saw that Protestantism was 
the only tenure by which she held her crown, she 
relented so far as not to compel a return to popery, 
but she issued orders imposing conditions upon the 
marriage of the priesthood, which he must have been 
not only uxorious indeed, but degraded in taste and 
spirit, who could comply with.J Never could she 
be got to give any thing more than a tacit" connivance 
to clerical matrimony, while ever and anon she poured 
her contempt upon both the married clergy and their 
wives. That amusing gossip, Sir John Harrington, 
gives the following ludicrous instance of her treatment 
even of the primate's lady. Parker had given Eliza- 
beth one of his sumptuous banquets at Lambeth. 
As the queen was retiring, she thus publicly addressed 
Mrs. Parker : " Madam" — (the usual title of mar- 

* Strypc's Ann. i. 118. t Strypc's Parker, i. 213—217. 

t Sec the injunctions in Bishop Sparrow's Collections, 65, or in 
Dr. Caldwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of England, i. 
No. 43. pp. 178—209. 



Xll THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

ried ladies) — " Madam I may not call you, Mistress" 
(the ordinary title of unmarried ladies) " I am loath 
to call you, but, however, I thank you for your good 
cheer." In 1594, she banished Bishop Fletcher, 
lately translated from Worcester to London, from 
her court for having married "a fine lady," (sister to 
Sir George Gifford, one of her srentlemen pensioners,) 
which she said " was a very indecent act for an elder- 
ly clergyman." Nor did her wrath end here. She 
commanded Whitgift to suspend him, and it was 
with considerable exertions on the part of Cecil that 
at the end of six months the suspension was removed. 
Still she would not sutler him for a twelvemonth 
afterward to appear in her presence. The poor court 
chaplain, who had hitherto basked in the sunshine of 
her smiles, pined away under her frowns, and died 
shortly afterwards of a broken heart, — a warning to 
all "elderly clergymen" not to be guilty of such 
" indecent acts " in future.* We shall show in 
the sequel that if Elizabeth had had any regard to 
the morals of the clergy, (which she had not,) she- 
ought rather to have passed a law compelling them 
to marry, nor would it have militated against good 
morals had she set them the example. 

Such having been Elizabeth's feelings against Pro- 
testantism and in favour of Popery, it must be matter 
of great surprise to ordinary readers that she should 
ever have become a Protestant at all. And, indeed, 
we are thoroughly persuaded that if she had not been 
necessitated^ both by her personal and political posi- 
tion, to promote the reformed interest, she would 
have remained herself, and kept the kingdom too, in 
communion with the Church of Rome. Religion with 
Elizabeth was, all her life, a mere political engine. 
While she persecuted in her own kingdom all who 
opposed her ecclesiastical views, she aided by coun- 
sels, men, and money, the Protestants of Scotland, 
France, Geneva, and the Netherlands, who opposed 
the ecclesiastical supremacy of their civil governors. 

* See the whole account in Strype's Whitgift, ii. 215—218. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION, X1U 

The court of Rome had declared her father's mar- 
riage with her mother invalid, and herself conse- 
quently illegitimate, and incapable of inheriting the 
throne of England. On her accession, she despatched 
a notification of that event to Rome, and resolved in 
the meanwhile to do nothing in favour of the Refor- 
mation, lest she might alienate the Vatican. The 
pontiff, however, ignorant equally of his own impo- 
tency, and of the imperiousness of her whom he ad- 
dressed, sent her back a haughty and arrogant an- 
swer, declared her illegitimate, commanded her to 
abandon the throne she had usurped, and resign her- 
self entirely to the will of the holy see of which Eng- 
land was but a fief. Such language Elizabeth could 
little brook even from the assumed vicar of Christ. 
Had the energetic but wily and insinuating Sixtus V. 
then occupied the chair of Peter, from his avowed 
regard for the congenial character of Elizabeth, and 
from other politic considerations, the answer would 
assuredly have been different, and the result would as 
assuredly have been different also. Or had Elizabeth 
been a weak-minded Papist, as she was a strong- 
minded-one, she might have been terrified into com- 
pliance, and Mary of Scotland would have ascended 
the throne of England in her own person instead of 
that of her son. But God made the wrath of men 
to praise him, and human infirmities and folly to 
magnify his own wisdom and might. Elizabeth's 
courage could as little falter at the spiritual thunders 
of the Vatican as at the more formidable artillery of 
the Armada of Spain. She therefore at once deter- 
mined to declare open war with the papacy, and to 
construct the Church of England after a model which, 
without banishing Popery in the splendour of its or- 
naments, the magnificence of its ritual, the mysticism 
of its sacraments, or the scholasticism of its dogmas, 
should be found more subservient to her own will, 
and more conducive to her personal aggrandizement, 
thai) it" it held of Rome. She resolved to unite the 
pontificate with the regale in her own person, to in- 
corporate the triple-storied tiara with the imperial 



XIV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

diadem, and grasp the keys of Peter with the same 
hand which wielded the sword of Alfred. In one 
word, she determined to become to the Church of 
England what the Pope was to the Church of Rome; 
and she carried her determination into execution. 

Elizabeth left neither her prelates nor her privy 
council at any loss to divine her intentions. She told 
Parker at the interview, at which, as already narrated, 
she had denounced the marriage of the clergy, that she 
meant to issue out injunctions in favour of Popery.* 
Had she been so disposed, the act of supremacy, to 
which we shall immediately allude, placed the entire 
constitutional power so to do in her hands. Political 
considerations, however, dissuaded her from seeking 
reconciliation with Rome. She valued her ecclesias- 
tical supremacy at the very least as highly as her 
civil autocracy ; and as a reconciliation with Rome 
could be purchased only by the surrender of the for- 
mer, and most probably also of the latter, Elizabeth 
remained satisfied with the power to render the na- 
tional religion Popish in every thing but a submission 
to the universal supremacy of the Pope. Parker, 
whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to enable 
him to remain in England during the reign of Mary, 
and whose nerves were not easily shaken, was in a 
"horror" at the determined manner in which she 
told him she was resolved to restore Popery; and he 
anticipated nothing else than that he should be one 
of the first victims of a new Popish persecution.t 
Even Cox, who, next to Cheney of Gloucester, was 
the most papistical of Elizabeth's first bishops, was 
so well aware of her inclinations to restore more of 
Popery than even he desired, that one of the argu- 
ments which he employed to urge Parker to a more 
vigorous persecution of the puritans, was an appre- 
hension lest the opposition they gave to her ecclesi- 
astical arrangements should provoke her to a total 
abandonment of Protestantism.^ Indeed, so well 
established is this point by the clearest historic evi- 

* Strypc's Parker, i. 217,218. 

t Ibid. Ap. Records, No. 17. t Ibid. i. 456. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XV 

dence, that no man acquainted with the facts of the 
case now doubts it, except, perhaps, some Anglican 
evangelicals, who are retained in the bosom of the 
Church of England through a delusive idea that it 
had really been reformed by Elizabeth. The High 
Church party are perfectly aware that Elizabeth did 
prevent the reformation of the Church of England. 
" This arbitrary monarch," says one of that party, 
"had a tendency towards Rome almost in every 
thing but the doctrine of the papal supremacy. To 
the real presence she was understood to have no ob- 
jection; the celibacy of the clergy she decidedly ap- 
proved; the gorgeous rites of the ancient form of 
worship she admired, and in her own chapel retain- 
ed."* The Puseyites gratefully acknowledge the ser- 
vice Elizabeth rendered to their cause. " Queen 
Elizabeth," says one of that school, "with her pre- 
judices in favour of the old religion, was doubtless 
an instrument in the hand of God for stopping the 
progress of the Reformation."! Indeed, the only 
objections that party have to Elizabeth's measures is, 
that she kept the supremacy to herself instead of 
leaving it in the hands of the clergy. 

Still with all her faults, and they are sufficiently 
numerous and aggravated, Elizabeth was a splendid 
monarch, and we can easily account for the admira- 
tion in which her memory is still held in England. 
To view her to advantage, or perhaps even to do her 
justice, we must forget her sex, overlook her religious 
opinions, bear in mind the unsettled form of the con- 
stitution, and judge her by the maxims of her own 
age. That assuredly could be no ordinary person- 
age who could task the consummate sagacity and 
finished tact of Cecil, fix the volatile passions of Lei- 

* Quarterly Review for June 1827, p. 31. See even the low 
church Burnet, the indiscriminate panegyrist of Elizabeth's mea - 
sures, Hist. Rcf. ed. 1839, ii. 582-3. Dr. Short, the present bishop 
of Sodor and Man, makes the same confession, Sketch of the Hist. 
of the Church of England, 2d ed. 313, ct passim. And so, in short, 
as wc have said, do all historians, except some evangelicals, to whose 
position it is essential to overlook the fact. 

t British Critic for October 1842, p. 333. See also, p. 330—1. 



XVI THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

cester, bend the stubborn spirit of Parker, outmanoeu- 
vre the Machiavellian policy of Montalto, and hum- 
ble the genius, chivalry, and resources of Spain. In 
courage equal to Semiramis, in accomplishments to 
Zenobia, in policy and energy to Catharine, she pos- 
sessed a combination of talents to which none of them 
could lay claim. Forget for the moment her creed, 
overlook her treatment of parliament and the Puri- 
tans, place yourself in her own age, and view her 
merely as a monarch, and even prejudice must ac- 
knowledge that she was the most magnificent sove- 
reign that ever occupied the English throne. 

The various steps by which the Church of England 
was brought to assume its present form, have been, 
as might well be expected, very keenly canvassed. 
We shall enable the reader, by a simple induction of 
facts, to form his own opinion both of the Church itself, 
and of the various means by which it was primarily 
established, and made to assume its present form. 

The first act of Elizabeth's first Parliament restor- 
ed to the crown the supremacy in matters spiritual 
which was possessed by Henry VIII. and Edward 
VI., but which Mary had resigned to the Pope. By 
this act 

" Such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and 
pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any 
spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath 
heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or 
used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and 
persons, and for reformation, order, and correction 
of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, 
schisms, abuses, oilc-nces, contempts and enormities, 
shall for ever, by the authority of the present parlia- 
ment, be united and annexed to the imperial crown 
of the realm." 

By a clause in the act of uniformity, it was enacted, 
"That the Queen's Majesty, by advice of her ecclesi- 
astical commissioners, may ordain and publish such 
ceremonies or rites as may be most for the advance- 
ment of God's glory, and the edifying of the church." 
So highly did Elizabeth esteem the authority thus 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XV11 

conferred upon her that she told Parker she would 
never have consented to establish the Protestant reli- 
gion at all but for the power with which she was 
thus invested to change it according to her own will. 
Nor let it be forgotten that our gracious sovereign 
Victoria, has, at this moment, the very same extent of 
power which the act of supremacy conferred upon 
Elizabeth. 

In order to enable Elizabeth, and all her successors, 
to exercise this most exorbitant power, by a clause 
in the act of supremacy she was empowered to dele- 
gate her authority to any persons, being natural born 
subjects, whether lay or clerical, who, as commission- 
ers from, and for the crown, were empowered to 
u visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all 
such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, contempts and 
enormities whatsoever, which, by any manner of 
spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority or jurisdic- 
tion, can or may lawfully be reformed, ordered, re* 
dressed, corrected, restrained or amended." 

"Nothing," as a High Church historian has well 
observed, "can be more comprehensive than the 
terms of this clause. The whoJe compass of Church 
discipline seems (and not only seems, but in reality 
was) transferred upon the crown."* While all par- 
ties, except the most decided Erastians, low church- 
men, and some also of the Evangelical body, have 
united in condemning, in the strongest terms, the 
spiritual powers thus conferred upon the crown, their 
indignation has been specially directed against that 
clause by which the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
of the Church of England may be exercised by lay 
commissioners, acting by a warrant under the crown. 
Had the crown been restricted to employ only eccle- 
siastics in ecclesiastical causes, the evil would be 
practically redressed. But as the crown not only 
possessed, but exercised the power to place this juris- 
diction in the hands of laymen, who, in virtue of their 
commission, were empowered to examine, censure, 

* Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Barham's edition, vi. 224. 
B 



XV111 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

suspend, and even depose, not only the inferior clergy, 
but even the prelates and the primates, and did too, 
in manifold instances, execute their commission, it 
were strange, indeed, if any man who can distinguish 
the Church from the world, and things spiritual from 
things civil, could but deplore and condemn this foul 
invasion of the privileges of Christ's kingdom. 

Such was the foundation of the high commission 
court, and of the star chamber, which in a subsequent 
age, proved so disastrous, not only to the liberties and 
the lives of the subject, but also to the stability of the 
altar and the throne. The authority of these courts 
was so undefined, their powers so despotic, that they 
could be perpetuated only by the destruction of all 
liberty, both civil and religious. 

" Whoever," says a Romanist historian of high 
name, " will compare the powers given to this tribu- 
nal, (the high commission court) with those of the 
inquisition which Philip the Second endeavoured to 
establish in the Low Countries, will find that the chief 
difference between the two courts consisted in their 
names."* 

And all that a learned and zealous advocate of 
the Church of England can say in her defence is, 
that " Dr. Lingard ought to have added, that though 
such commissions were not unknown in the time of 
Edward VI., the person who first brought into Eng- 
land the model attempted in the Low Countries was 
Queen Mary; . . . and that the same system was 
continued in the reign of Elizabeth, not because it 
was congenial with the spirit of Protestantism, but 
because the temper of the times had been trained 
and hardened in the school of Popery."t As if it 
were not admitted, even by this apologist himself, 
that the Church of England had the precedency of 
Philip in the institution of a court of inquisition 
under Edward, as if any man but an out-and-out 
apologist of the Church of England would identify 

t Lingard's History of England, v. 316. 

X Dr. Cardwell's Documentary Annals of the Church of England, 
i. 223. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XIX 

the actions of Elizabeth with the genuine manifesta- 
tions of " the spirit of Protestantism," and as if, be- 
sides, the high commission court and the star cham- 
ber, as Dr. Cardwell's words would insinuate, had 
terminated with the reign of Elizabeth, or had been 
abolished by the Church of England, when he very- 
well knows the horrors these courts perpetrated in 
subsequent reigns, and knows, too, that it was the 
rising power of the Puritans that demolished these 
infernal courts, which an increasing party in the 
Church of England, who fairly represent her genius, 
will ere long restore, if the old puritan spirit do not 
prevent such a national calamity. 

Ample as the spiritual and ecclesiastical powers 
thus conferred upon Elizabeth were, she was not 
satisfied, until, by a clause in the act of supremacy, 
all persons holding public office, civil, juridical, muni- 
cipal, military or ecclesiastical, were required to take 
an oath in recognition of the supremacy royal, binding 
themselves to defend the same, under pain of being 
deprived of their offices, and of being declared inca- 
pable of further employment. This oath, by the 36th 
canon, continues to be taken by all ecclesiastics down 
to this day. 

Thus, by one disastrous stroke, the liberties of the 
Church of England were cloven down, and laid pros- 
trate in the dust. All ecclesiastical jurisdiction, all 
spiritual power, were lodged in the crown, without 
respect to the sex, creed, or character of the party 
who, for the time, might happen to wear it. The 
prelates and pastors of that Church thus became, even 
in the discharge of their most sacred functions, the 
mere vicars and delegates of the supreme civil magis- 
trate. Not one rite, even the most trivial, can they 
alter, not one canon, however necessary, can they 
pass, not one error, however gross, can they reform, 
not one omission, even the most important, can they 
supply. The civil magistrate enacts the creed they 
are bound to profess and inculcate, frames the prayers 
which they must offer at the throne of God, prescribes 
in number and form the sacraments they must admin- 



XX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

ister, arranges the rites and vestments they must use, 
down to the colour, shape, and stuff of a cap or a 
tunicle, and takes discipline altogether out of their 
hand. The parish priest has no authority to exclude 
the most profligate sinner from communion, the lord- 
liest prelate or primate cannot excommunicate the 
most abandoned sinner, or suspend the most immoral 
ecclesiastic from his functions, and should either the 
priest or the prelate attempt to exercise the discipline 
prescribed by the Lord Jesus in his house, he will 
speedily be made to understand, by the terrors of a 
praemunire, or the experience of a prison, that he is 
not appointed in the Church of England to administer 
the laws of Christ, but the statutes of the imperial par- 
liament, or the injunctions of the crown.* Never was 
there so autocratical a despotism placed in the hands 
of a human being, as, by the Constitution of the Church 
of England, is reposed in the sovereign — never, on 
earth, was there so fettered aiid enthralled a commu- 
nity as the southern establishment. The muftis and 
other ecclesiastical functionaries (so to term them) 
Iiave an indefinite authority by the constitution of 
Turkey to resist the jurisdiction of the Sultan — a 
general council, it is the prevalent opinion among 
Romanists, can control the authority of the pope, and 
in both cases the supreme functionaries are consider- 
ed spiritual officers; but in the Church of England, 

* It is only one or two years ago that a country clergyman wrote 
the editor of the Christian Observer for advice under the following 
circumstances. A married gentleman in his parish lived in a state 
of open adultery with the wife of another man. A child was the fruit 
of this unhallowed union. The guilty, but shameless mother, actuated 
by feelings which we are glad we cannot analyze, came to the min- 
ister, insisting upon being " churched ;" that is, that a particular office, 
appointed for the purpose, should be offered up next Sabbath, return- 
ing thanks to the God of all holiness for the sate delivery of this infant, 
born in double adultery. We know not what was the issue of the case, 
but our brethren of the Synod of Ulster, in one of their late admi- 
rable works in favour of presbytery ( Presbyter ianism Defended, pp. 
183-4, 203-4,) mention an instance of a minister who was kept for 
years in prison for having refused the strum pet of a gentleman resi- 
dent in his parish admission to the Lord's Supper. The late case of 
the Dean of York shows the jurisdiction, or rather total want of juris- 
diction, which the prelate possesses over the clergy. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXI 

priests, prelates, and primates, have no authority 
whatever, ecclesiastics though they he, to control, or 
even to modify, the spiritual supremacy of a lay and 
civil magistrate. 

So anomalous a society was never witnessed, if 
society it can be called, which has not one single ele- 
ment of an organized community, — which consists of 
a mere congeries of individual atoms without laws 
enacted by themselves, without officers appointed by 
themselves, or powers lodged in themselves, which has 
no self-existing attributes, no self-regulating agency, 
which, in one word, has not one single element, even 
the most essential of a corporate body. Were we 
disposed to push onr arguments, as far as we are 
warranted, we might deny that the Church of Eng- 
land is a Church at all. For let it be observed that, 
as from the nature of the case, spiritual power cannot 
be lodged in lay or civil hands, any more than autho- 
rity to administer the sacraments, the Lord's Supper, 
as well as baptism, and to confer orders, can be pos- 
sessed by a layman or a woman; and as all priestly 
powers, by the constitution of the Church of England, 
are placed in the sovereign — the prelates being his 
mere delegates, (and that, whether in the reign of 
Henry VIII., and of Edward VI., they are obliged to 
take out a commission to empower them to perform 
their functions, or submit, as they all must now do, 
to the 36th canon;) and as, moreover, every society 
must possess some species of organization, suited to 
its peculiar character, which the Church of England, 
as a Church, does not possess, it raises a serious ques- 
tion, whether that can be accounted a Church, if we 
are to take our ideas of a Church from the word of 
God. We certainly have no intention whatsoever to 
maintain, as so many of them do regarding us, that 
the individuals who compose that Church are cast 
out to the "uncovenanted mercies of God;" for we 
rejoice to know that the grace of God is not restrained 
by any external impediments; and we rejoice further 
to know, that there are many of God's chosen ones in 
communion with that Church, as we doubt not was 



XX11 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

also the case even in the Church of Rome, during 
the middle ages; but as a Church, or scripturally con- 
stituted society, we dare not but have considerable 
difficulty in recognizing it.* 

The Erastian thraldom to which the Church of 
England has been reduced, cannot but be galling ,to 
all her rightly constituted clergy, and we so deeply 
sympathize with them, that we put the most favour- 
able construction upon all their apologies for them- 
selves. We cannot, however, lend the same indul- 
gence to their attempts to prove that theirs is the best 
possible constitution, any more than we could listen 
with any patience to a West Indian slave, who should 
shake his fetters in our face as an evidence of the 
superior advantages of slavery. Even this, how- 
ever, we might pass with a sigh for the degradation 
to which slavery reduces its victims, but we cannot 
extend the same tolerance to their libels upon other 
Churches for having had the manliness of spirit to 
assert their proper liberty, and the regard to the 
honour of Jesus to vindicate his sovereign exclusive 
supremacy in his own Church. And yet a member 
of the Church of England can never think of defend- 

* When Henry VIII. was about to appoint a commission to ex- 
amine the slate of the religious houses, he, with one stroke of his 
pen, suspended all the prelates in England from the exercise of their 
jurisdictions. He afterwards, at the humble petition of each prelate 
separately presented, was graciously pleased to restore him to his 
functions by a commission, in which it was distinctly specified that 
he was to regard himself as the mere vicar of the crown. The terms 
of these commissions are sufficiently startling to any man who has 
not sounded the lowest depths of Erastianism. We may give a con- 
densed summary of one clause of these singular instruments : " Since 
all authority, civil and ecclesiastical, flows from the crown, and since 
Cromwell," (a mere layman, but made vicar general in spiritualibus 
over all the clergy) "to whom (and not to the prelates) the ecclesias- 
tical part has been committed," (vices nostras as the vicar of the 
crown) "is so occupied, that he cannot fully exercise it, we commit 
to you (each individual prelate) the license of ordaining, granting 
institution and collation ; and, in short, of performing all other eccle- 
siastical acts; and we allow you to hold this authority during our 
pleasure, as you must answer to God and to us !" Similar commis- 
sions were granted by Edward VI. to his prelates. Seethe originals 
in Collier (fol.) ii. rcc. Nos. 31, 41; or Barham's ed. ix. pp. 123, 157; 
Burnet, i. rec. b. iii.No. 14; and ii, No. 2; or London 8vo. ed. 1839 ; 
iv. pp. 104,249. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XX111 

ing his own Church, but he must at the same time 
attack the Churches of others, and especially the 
Church of Scotland.* Just notice the self-complacent 
absurdity of the following passage from the last page 
of the work noticed in the preceding note, by the pre- 
sent bishop of Sodor and Man: "Compare," says 
Dr. Short, addressing men who are too ignorant to 
be capable of instituting a comparison, or too pre- 
judiced to be able to pass an impartial judgment, 
"compare what took place in Scotland with .what 
took place in England, at the period of the Reforma- 
tion;" and after showing some of those things which 
did take place in England, and stating that "the 
admirer of our Episcopal Church — our apostolic estab- 
lishment" must thank the timid, if not the time-serv- 
ing and Erastian Cranmer, that the Church of Eng- 
land was reformed precisely as she was, and that it did 
not happen there as it did happen among us — we have 
Dr. Short's word for it — " that the force of the multi- 
tude ... in Scotland (had) thrown down what the Epis- 
copalians will consider as almost the Church itself." 

And who, pray, composed that " multitude" of 
which Dr. Short speaks so very contemptuously? 
The Christian people of Scotland, who through " the 
unction of the Holy One," had, by an' ordination 
higher than the Church of England can confer, been 
made a " royal priesthood ;" and who, both by their 
position in the Church, and by their qualification, 
were thus entitled and bound by more authoritative 
"injunctions" than ever emanated from prince or 
prelate, to " try the spirits," and not accept of any 
man to be minister over them, unless, as his creden- 
tials, he brought with him, not " letters of orders," or 
an excerpt from a pretended apostolical genealogy, 
but the gifts, graces, and gospel of the living God. 
And, pray, what horrible acts did this same " multi- 
tude" commit, which should be so enormous as to 

* Sec some specimens of this line of defence and attack, which 
would be amusing enough from their ludicrousness, if they were not 
pitiable from the perversity of judgment they display, in Dr. Short's 
Sketch of the History of tl>e Church of England, 104, 242-3, 198, 
and elsewhere. 



XXIV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

lead " an episcopalian to consider that they had almost 
thrown down the Church itself?" Why, they just 
followed where their ministers led them — no great 
crime, one should suppose, in the eyes of a prelate; 
and also, in conformity with the prophetic enuncia- 
tion of their God-commissioned apostle, they fancied, 
that the " best way to prevent the rooks from return- 
ing was to pull down their nests," a proceeding, the 
prophetic sagacity of which has been demonstrated 
by the history of the Church of England, in whose 
dark cloisters rooks have continued to roost ever since 
the Reformation, to which as their safe retreats they 
betake themselves whenever the moral effulgence of 
the truth becomes painful to their distempered optics, 
and from which, as at present, they come forth in 
darkening clouds whenever the fields seem ripe for 
their pillage. But let us return to the history of the 
Anglican Reformation. 

When Elizabeth ascended the throne, Popery, as 
restored by Mary, was the established religion. Those 
Protestants who had, in the words of Fuller, "con- 
trived to weather out the storm" of Mary's persecu- 
tions at home in England, depending upon the pro- 
testantism of the daughter of Anne Boleyn, the early 
patroness of the Reformation, now ventured to cele- 
brate public worship according to the liturgy of Ed- 
ward VI. This was done with still more zeal by the 
exiles who had fled to the continent to avoid the 
persecution of Mary, and had now returned in the 
hope of enjoying liberty of conscience in their native 
land. Elizabeth, ho wever, had hitherto done nothing 
to indicate thai she was favourable to the reformed 
faith, but much to the contrary. She had been 
crowned according to the forms of the popish pontifi- 
cal, of which a high mass was an essential^part. The 
exiles, however, presuming at least upon a toleration, 
began to celebrate public worship according to the 
reformed ritual, and to preach to the people the un- 
searchable riches of Christ. Elizabeth, when appriz- 
ed of this proceeding, issued a proclamation, forbid- 
ding all preaching, and the use of Edward's liturgy, 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXV 

and commanding that in public worship the missal in 
Latin should be employed, except the litany, the 
Lord's prayer, and the creed, which were tolerated 
in English. The only instruction to be given to the 
people consisted of the " gospel and the epistles of the 
day/ 7 with the ten commandments, which were allow- 
ed to be read in the English tongue. Religion, through- 
out this year (1558) continued precisely as it had 
been in the reign of Mary, and was celebrated by 
precisely the same priests, with the addition of so 
many of the exiles as had returned, and the few Pro- 
testants who had remained at home.* 

Elizabeth, however, was aware that some altera- 
tion in religion must be made. Accordingly, about 
the period at which she summoned her first parlia- 
ment, she appointed certain divines, under the presi- 
dency of Secretary Sir Thomas Smith, to prepare a 
liturgy which might be laid before the legislature. 
These divines were instructed to compare Edward's 
two liturgies with the popish offices, and to frame 
such a form of prayer as might suit the circumstances 
of the times. They were, however, to give a prefer- 
ence to Edward's first liturgy, which retained many 
popish dogmas and usages, in all matters to be very 
wary of innovations, and especially, to leave all mat- 
ters in discussion between the Protestants and the 
Papists so undefined, and expressed in such general 
terms as not to offend the latter. Elizabeth's great 
desire in this, and, indeed, in all her measures, was to 
comprehend the Papists in any form of religion which 
might be established. She never seems to have enter- 
tained any desire to conciliate or concede any thing 
to her Protestant subjects. 

The divines having finished their work, brought 
the draft of a liturgy to Cecil, in order to its being 
submitted to her majesty. Before presenting it to 
parliament Elizabeth made various important altera- 
tions on it, all for the express purpose of reducing it to 
a nearer conformity to the popish liturgies, and thus 
conciliating the Papists. It were altogether beyond 

* Strypc's Annals, i. 59, 71, 77 ; Burnet ii. 585; Collier vi. 200. 



XXVI THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

our present limits to give a minute enumeration of the 
various alterations introduced by Elizabeth into the 
draft presented to her by the divines, or to show in 
what, and how many particulars, her prayer-book, 
which (with a few verbal alterations since introduced) 
is the liturgy at present in use in the Church of Eng- 
land, is still more popish than even that which was 
in use at the death of Edward. A {ew, however, 
must be mentioned.* 

In the litany ot' Edward's second liturgy there was 
a prayer in the following terms : — " From the tyranny 
of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormi- 
ties, good Lord deliver us." This was cancelled in 
the liturgy of Elizabeth, — we can be at no loss to 
divine for what reason. In the communion office of 
the former, when the minister delivered the bread to 
the communicant, he said, " Take, and eat this, in re- 
membrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him 
in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving ;" and 
when he delivered the cup, he said, " Drink this in 
remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, 
and be thankful," — clearly implying that it was mere- 
ly an eucharistic commemoration, rendered efficacious 
only through faith. In the communion office of the 
latter, the priest, in handing the bread, said to the 
communicant, " The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
which was given for thee, preserve thy body and 
soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this," &c. 
And when delivering the cup, "The blood of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve 
thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this," 
&c. — words that were expressly intended to imply the 
real presence, and an opus operatum efficacy, with- 

* Those who desire fuller information, we recommend to study Dr. 
Cardwcll's History of Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer ; 
the two Liturgies of Edward VI. compared, by the same author; Dr. 
Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England, 537 — 549 ; 
Collier's History, vi. 248—250; and Records, No. 77; Strype's An- 
nals, i. 98 — 123; sec also Baillie's Parallel of the Liturgy with the 
Mass Book, the Breviary, and other Romish Rituals, 4to., 1641; 
Wheatley's Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer, and the other 
Ritualists ; Palmer's Origines Liturgicoe. Burnet, Neal, and the other 
historians, all take up the subject, but very imperfectly. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXV11 

out any regard whatever to the faith or spiritual con- 
dition of the communicant. In order to prevent the 
idea that when kneeling was retained as the required 
posture at the communion, it was intended to imply- 
that Christ was bodily present, or that any adoration 
was designed to be given to the elements, a rubric 
was added to the office in Edward's second prayer- 
book, which declared that the elements remained 
unchanged, and that no adoration was given them. 
This rubric was omitted in Elizabeth's prayer-book, 
and the communicant was left to believe and to adore 
as he had been accustomed to do. The divines who 
had drawn up Elizabeth's liturgy left it to the choice 
of the communicant himself to receive the communion 
kneeling or standing ; Elizabeth made it imperative 
upon all to receive it kneeling. These divines, be- 
sides, had disapproved of any distinction being made 
between the vestments worn by the ministers while 
celebrating the eucharist, and those worn at other 
parts of the service; Elizabeth, however, made it im- 
perative on the officiating priest to administer the 
sacrament in the old popish vestments, as was the 
case in Edward's first liturgy, but had been altered 
in the second; and in order that the benighted Papists 
might, by act of parliament, and of the supremacy 
royal, have every encouragement to continue in their 
idolatry, it was ordered that the bread should be 
changed into the wafer formerly used at private 
masses. Not satisfied with the popish innovations she 
had already made, and seemingly apprehensive that 
if she went at once so far as she felt inclined in her re- 
trogression towards Rome, she might find some diffi- 
culty in carrying the prelates and the parliament 
along with her, Elizabeth introduced into the act of 
uniformity (to which we shall allude immediately) a 
clause by which she was empowered " to ordain and 
publish such further rites and ceremonies as should be 
most for the reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and 
sacraments;" words of ominous import; and, as we 
have already stated, she told Parker that if it had 
not been for the power thus conferred upon her, 



XXV111 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

" she would not have agreed to divers orders of the 
book. 

The liturgy having been thus prepared was intro- 
duced into parliament, in a bill for " Uniformity of 

prayer, and administration of sacraments," and passed 
through the Commons, seemingly without opposition, 
in the short space of three days. It met with some 
opposition in the upper house from a few of the popish 
prelates and peers, but was carried, without one word 
being altered, by a most triumphant majority; and 
having received the royal assent, became law. 

The population of England at this time consisted 
of two great parties, Puritans and Papists, with of 
course some neutrals, who were prepared to join 
either party according as their interests might seem to 
dictate. Both of these great parties differed, as in 
every thing else, so also in their estimation of the 
prayer-book. We now proceed to consider the opin- 
ions and the conduct of each of these parties in regard 
to the newly imposed liturgy. 

The intrinsic character of the Anglican liturgy may 
be very safely inferred from the sources whence it 
was drawn, and the estimation in which it was held 
by Papists. In regard to the former, it is known to 
all in any measure conversant with the subject, that 
the book of common prayer was taken from the Ro- 
mish service-book. "In our public services," says 
the present bishop of Sodor and Man, " the greater 
part of the book of common prayer is taken from the 
Roman ritual." Again, — "In giving an account of 
the Common prayer book, it will be more correct to 
describe it as ;i work compiled from the services of 
the Church of Rome, or rather as a translation than 
as an original composition." Again, speaking of 
Edward's first prayer-book, of which, indeed, he spoke 
in both the preceding instances, lie says, u almost the 
whole of it was taken from different Roman catholic 

* Peiroc's Vindic. of Pis. p. 47, Strype, Burnet, Collier, &c., fancy 
that some of these alterations were introduced by parliament, but 
Dr. Cardvvell has shown that they were the work of Elizabeth ; see 
Cardwcll's History of Conf. pp. 21, 22. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXIX 

services, particularly those after the use of Salisbury, 
which were then generally adopted in the south of 
England, and the principle on which the compilers 
proceeded in the work was to alter as little as possible 
what had been familiar to the people. Thus the litany 
is nearly the same as in the Salisbury hours." Speak- 
ing of the Anglican ordination office, he says, " its 
several parts are taken from that in use in the Church 
of Rome," with few exceptions, which he mentions. 
In a note, he states that those parts of the liturgy 
which were not taken from the service books of the 
Church of Rome were drawn from a prayer-book 
compiled about this time by Hserman, the popish 
bishop of Cologne.* Edward's second prayer-book 
was a revised edition of the first, omitting some of 
the grosser abominations of Popery which the first 
contained. The present prayer-book of the Church 
of England stands about half-way between the first 
and second of Edward, and was, as we have seen 
above, taken almost verbatim from the popish ser- 
vice book. Such, then, is the parentage of " our 
apostolic prayer-book — our incomparable liturgy— 
our inestimable service book," of which even evan- 
gelical members of the Church of England cannot 
speak in terms sufficiently expressive of their rap- 
turous admiration. 

Bearing all this in mind, we shall cease to feel any 
surprise at the fact mentioned by all historians of the 
period, that so well satisfied were the Papists with 
the Reformed (so termed) services, and so little dif- 
ference did they discover between the modern and 
the ancient ritual, that for the first ten years of Eliza- 
beth's reign they continued, "without doubt or scru- 
ple," as Heylin says, to attend public worship in the 
Church of England. Indeed, as all acknowledge, 
who know any thing of the subject, if the court of 
Rome had not altered its policy towards England, 
excommunicated Elizabeth, and forbidden her sub- 
jects to attend the Established Church, the Papists 

* Sketch of the History, &c, 201, 537, 510, 511. 



XXX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

would have remained conscientiously convinced, that 
in worshipping in the Anglican establishment, they 
were still attending upon the Romish services; so 
imperceptible to their well-practised senses was the 
difference between the two, and so well did the com- 
pilers of the prayer-book or the revisers of their work 
accomplish the task prescribed to them by the queen, 
viz. to frame a liturgy which should not offend the 
Papists.* Nay, but what is more, when a copy of 
the prayer-book had been sent to the Pope, so well 
was he satisfied with it, that he offered, through his 
nuncio Parpalia, to ratify it for England, if the queen 
would only own the supremacy of the see of Rome.t 
Such was the estimation in which the Pope and his 
followers held the prayer-book, which Anglicans now 
can never mention without exhausting all the super- 
latives in the vocabulary of commendation to express 
their most unbounded admiration of " our inimitable, 
inestimable, incomparable, apostolic, (?) and all but 
inspired liturgy." Nothing strikes so painfully upon 
the ear as to hear a man of evangelical sentiments 
utter such hyperboles in laudation of a Popish com- 
pilation, which even antichrist offered to sanction. 
In attempting to account for so startling a phenome- 
non, we have heard men less charitable than our- 
selves surmise, that the only principle on which it 
can be accounted for is, that the less intrinsic merit 
any object possesses, the more loudly must it be 
praised, to secure for it popular acceptance. For our 
own parts we must say we rank the matter under 
the category de gustibus, &c., and say there is no 

* Sir George Puule relates in his panegyric on Whitgifl, that an 
Italian Papist, lately arrived in England, on seeing that ambitious 
primate in the cathedral of Canterbury one Sabbath, " attended upon 
by an hundred of his own servants at least, in livery, whereof there 
were forty gentlemen in chains of gold; also by the dean, prebenda- 
ries, and preachers, in their surplices and scarlet hoods, and heard 
the solemn music, with the voices and organs, cornets and sackbuts, 
he was overtaken with admiration, and told an English gentleman, 
that unless it were in the Pope's chapel, he never saw a more solemn 
sight, or heard a more heavenly sound." — Wordworth's Eccl. Biog., 
iv. 388-9. 

t Strype's An., i. 340. Burnet, ii. 645. Collie'r, vi. 308—9. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXI 

disputing about taste. And if members of the Church 
of England were satisfied with enjoying it them- 
selves, without thrusting it upon other people, and if 
moreover they did not, as some of them do, place it 
upon a level with the Bible, we should for our own 
part be as little disposed to deny them its use as we 
certainly are to envy them its possession. 

The commendations bestowed by Papists upon the 
Anglican prayer-book might of itself lead us to infer 
that it did not satisfy the Reformers ; and the conclu- 
sion thus arrived at is as much in accordance with 
historic facts as it is the result of logical accuracy. 
The continental Reformers to a man expressed both 
contempt and indignation towards the Anglican litur- 
gy. Calvin* declared, that he found in it many 
(tolerabiles ineptias), i. e., "tolerable fooleries;" 
that is, tolerable for the moment, as children are 
allowed (to use quaint old Fuller's illustration) to 
"play with rattles to get them to part with knives." 
Knoxt declared, that it contained " diabolical inven- 
tions, viz., crossing in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's 
table, mumbling or singing of the liturgy," &c, and 
" that the whole order of (the) book appeared rather 
to be devised for upholding of massing priests, than 
for any good instruction which the simple people can 
thereof receive." Beza,i writing to Bullinger about 
the state of England and the English Church, says, 
"I clearly perceive that Popery has not been ejected 
from that kingdom, but has been only transferred 
from the Pope to the queen; and the only aim of 
parties in power there is to bring back matters to the 
state in which they formerly stood. I at one time 
thought that the only subject of contention (between 
the Puritans and the Conformists) was about caps 
and external vestments; but I now, to my inexpres- 
sible sorrow, understand that it is about very dirfer- 

* Epirt. p. 28, t. ix. cd. 16G7. 

t Caldcrwood's History, (Wodrow ed.), i. 431. See the whole let- 
ter, pp. 425—434. 

t Strypc's An. ii. Rec. No. 29. The whole letter deserves a care- 
ful perusal. 



XXX11 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

ent matters indeed," even the most vital and fun- 
damental elements of the Christian Church, as the 
sequel of the letter shows.* Beza concludes by say- 
ing, "such is the state of the Anglican Church, ex- 
ceedingly miserable, and indeed, as it appears to me, 
Intolerable." We might quote similar sentiments 
from other continental divines, such as Bullinger and 
Gualter, and may perhaps do so ere we close. But 
since the opinions of the Anglican Reformers them- 
selves will be, in the circumstances, of more import- 
ance, and since we are very much hampered for want 
of space, we come at once to the recorded judgment 
which these great and good men passed upon the 
prayer-book and the Church of England. 

The opinions of Grindal, successively bishop of 
London and archbishop of York and Canterbury; of 
Sandys, successively bishop of Worcester and Lon- 
don, and archbishop of York; of Parkhurst of Nor- 
wich, Pilkington of Durham, Jewell of Salisbury, 
and others, we need not refer to, as every one knows 
that they expressed themselves as strongly against 
the state of the Anglican Church as Sampson, Fox, 
Coverdale, or Humphreys. The only prelates of the 
first set appointed by Elizabeth who are claimed by 
Anglicans themselves, as having been in favour of 
the reformed condition of the Church of England, are 
Archbishop Parker, Cox of Ely, and Home of Win- 
chester, (as for Cheney of Gloucester and Bristol, we 
give him up an avowed Papist,) and if we show 
that these were dissatisfied with the condition of the 
Church of England, even her apologists must acknow- 
ledge that all Elizabeth's first prelates desired that 
that Church should he further reformed. 

Parker was one of the compilers of the prayer-book, 
and we have already seen how much the first draft 
excelled the present liturgy. Even after it had been 
enjoined, both by parliament and the queen, that the 

* The vicar of Leeds not only admits, but contends that Beza was 
correct in stating that the contention entered into the vital elements 
of Christianity. See Dr. Hook's Sermon, a Call to Union, &c, 2d 
ed., 74, 75. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXX111 

communion should be received kneeling, Parker ad- 
ministered it in his own cathedral to the communi- 
cants standing.* At the very time when he was per- 
secuting the Puritans for nonconformity, (1575,) he 
wrote Cecil, " Doth your lordship think that I care 
either for caps, tippets, surplices, or wafer bread or 
any such?"t And Strype says expressly, that his 
" pressing conformity to the queen's laws and injunc- 
tions, proceeded not out of fondness to the ceremonies 
themselves/' which he would willingly see altered, 
"but for the laws establishing them he esteemed 
them."± " It may fairly be presumed/ 7 says Bishop 
Short, " that Parker himself entertained some doubts 
concerning the points which were afterwards disputed 
between the Puritans and the high church party; for 
in the questions prepared to be submitted to con- 
vocation in 1563, probably under his own direction, 
and certainly examined by himself/' for his annota- 
tions stand yet upon the margin of the first scroll, 
" there are several which manifestly imply that such 
a. difference of opinion might prevail."§ The ques- 
tions here alluded to by Bishop Short embrace most 
of those matters which were at first disputed between 
the Puritans and conformists. In particular, " It was 
proposed that all vestments, caps, and surplices, should 
be taken away; that none but ministers should bap- 
tize ; that the table for the sacrament should not stand 
altar-wise; that organs and curious singing should be 
removed ; that godfathers and godmothers should not 
answer in the child's name;" and several other mat- 
ters, which were then loudly complained of, but which 
remain in the Church of England till this day.|| It 
was only after he had been scolded into irritation by 
the queen, after his morose and sullen disposition and 
despotic temper had been chafed and inflamed by the 
resistance of the Puritans, and he felt or fancied that 
his character and the honour of his primacy were in 

* McCric's Life of Knox, 6th ed., p. 64, note. 
+ Strypc's Parker, ii. 424. t Ibid. p. 528. 

§ Sketch, &c., p. 250. 

II Burnet, iii. 457, 458. Strype's Parker, i. 386. Rec. No. 39. 
C 



XXXIV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

jeopardy, that Parker committed himself to that course 
of persecution which has "damned his name to ever- 
lasting infamy." Had he even the inquisitor's plea 
of conscience, however unenlightened, to urge in his 
own defence, some apology, how inadequate soever, 
might be made for him. But Parker was a perse- 
cutor only from passion, or at best from policy.* Par- 
ker himself then was inclined to a further reformation 
of the Church of England. 

As to Cox again: in a letter to Bullinger, in 1551, 
we find him writing thus:—" I think all things in the 
Church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the 
greatest distance from the pomp and elements of the 
world. But in this our Church what can I do in so 
low a station?" (he was then, if we rightly remember, 
only archdeacon of Ely:) " I can only endeavour to 
persuade our bishops to be of the same mind with 
myself. This I wish truly, and I commit to God the 
care and conduct of his own work."t In the follow- 
ing year we find him complaining bitterly of the oppo- 
sition of the courtiers to the introduction of ecclesi- 
astical discipline, and predicting that if it were not 
adopted, " the kingdom of God would be taken away 
from them."$ After his return from exile, he joined 
with Grindal (whose scruples in accepting a bishopric 
were hushed only by all the counsels and exhortations 
of Peter Martyr, Bullinger, and Gualter)§ and the 
other bishops elect in employing the most strenuous 
efforts to effect a more thorough reformation in the 
Church of England, before they should accept of 
dioceses in it. When they found that they could not 
succeed, they seriously deliberated whether they could 
accept preferments in so popish a Church. At last 
they were induced to yield to the counsels of Bul- 

* Bishop Short candidly acknowledges, that "when Parker and 
the other bishops had begun to execute the laws against nonconfor- 
mists, they must have been more than men," or less, "if they could 
divest their own minds of that personality which every one must feel 
when engaged in a controversy in which the question, really is, 
whether he shall be able to succeed in carrying his plans into execu- 
tion." Sketch, &.C., p. 251. 

t Burnet, iii. 303—4. t Strype's Mem. Ref. ii. 366. 

§ Strype's Grindal, 41—44, Ap. No. 11. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXV 

linger and Gualter, and other continental divines 
whom they consulted, because the rites imposed were 
not in themselves necessarily sinful; because they 
anticipated that when elevated to the mitre, they 
should have power to effect the reformation they 
desired, and because, moreover, by occupying the 
sees they might exclude Lutherans and Papists, who 
would not only not reform, but would bring back the 
Church still further towards Rome.* Even Cox, then, 
desired further reformation in the Church of England, 
and was so dissatisfied with its condition, that not- 
withstanding of the gold and power it would bestow, 
(and both of them he loved dearly) he scrupled to 
accept a bishopric within its pale. When we bear in 
mind his conduct at Frankfort, and his subsequent 
career in England, we may safely conclude that the 
Church that was too popish for Cox had certainly but 
few pretensions to the name either of Reformed or Pro- 
testant. 

And finally, as to Home, he not only had scruples 
at first, like the rest, as to accepting a bishopric, but 
when he found that the reformation he anticipated 
he should be able to effect after his elevation could 
not be accomplished, he deliberated with himself, and 
consulted with the continental divines, whether it 
did not become his duty to resign his preferments. 
In conjunction with Grindal, he wrote for advice to 
Gualter, asking, whether, under the circumstances, 
he thought they could with a safe conscience continue 
in their sees. Gualter induced Bullinger, whose in- 
fluence was greater, to answer the question submitted 
to him. Bullinger accordingly replied, that if, upon 
a conscientious conviction, it should appear that, upon 
the whole, and all things considered, it were better to 
remain, then it became their duty to occupy their 
places, but if the reverse, then it was as clearly their 
duty to renounce them. He cautions them, however, 
against imagining, that because he gives this counsel, 
lie therefore, in any manner, approved of the con- 
duct of those who were for retaining "Papistical 

* Slrypc's An. ii. 263. Strypc's Grindal, 41—49, 438. 



XXXVI THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

dregs." On the contrary, he urges, with the greatest 
warmth, that the queen and the rulers of the nation 
should be importuned to proceed further with the 
Reformation, and that, among other reasons, lest the 
Church of England should remain "polluted with 
Popish dregs and offscourings, or afford any ground 
of complaint to the neighbour Churches of Scotland 
and France." Further information on this subject 
will be found in the note below.* 

* Since attempts have been, and are still made, to represent the 
divines of Zurich as having been satisfied with the length to which 
reformation was carried in the Church of England, it is necessary to 
show that the very reverse is the truth. Those who have access to 
the work, and can read the language, we would recommend to peruse 
in full the letters sent by Grindal and Home to Bullingcr and Gualter, 
and the answers returned by these divines, as they appear in Burnet's 
Records, B. vi. Nos. 75, 76, 82, 83, 87. Those who cannot read the 
original, may form some idea of their contents from the translated 
Summary, iii. pp. 462 — 476. 

Grindal, whose scruples were never removed, and who therefore 
wrote frequently and anxiously to foreign divines to obtain their sanc- 
tion to the course he was pursuing, had, in conjunction with Home, 
written to Bullinger and Gualter, requesting further counsel regard- 
ing the propriety of their remaining in the Church of England. 
Perceiving, most probabby, the wounded state of the consciences of 
their brethren in the Lord, Bullingcr and Gualter wrote a soothing 
reply, saying as much as they conscientiously could in favour of 
remaining in their cures. When the Anglican prelates received this 
answer, they at once saw that the judgment of those eminent foreign 
divines would go far to stop the censures which the Puritans pro- 
nouneed against their conforming brethren; and although the letter 
was strictly private, they published it. As soon as Bullinger and 
Gualter wire apprised of this act, they wrote a letter to the Earl of 
Bedford, one of the leaders of the Puritan party, complaining of the 
breach of confidence of which Grindal and Home had been guilty, 
and explaining the circumstances in which their letter had been 
written, deploring that it had been made theocccasion of further per- 
secution against their dear brethren in Christ (the Puritans,) and urg- 
ing upon the good Earl Id proceed strenuously in purifying the 
t 'hureh of Bnglaqd of the dregs of Popery, which, to their bitter grief, 
they found were still retained within her. When Horn and Grindal 
learned the feelings of their continental correspondents, they sent 
them a most submissive and penitential apology. In reply, Bullinger 
and Gualter mentioned several of those errors still existing in the 
Church of England, which they urged all her prelates to reform; 
such as subscriptions to new articles of faith and discipline, theatrical 
singing in churches, accompanied by the "crash of organs," baptism 
by women, the interrogations of sponsors, the cross, and other su- 
perstitious ceremonies in baptism, kneeling at the communion, and 
the use of wafer bread (which Strype informs us was made like the 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXVll 

Such, then, was the judgment deliberately formed 
and often repeated, even of those Anglican High 
Church prelates, regarding the constitution and usages 

" singing cakes" formerly used in private masses, Life of Parker, ii. 
32 — 5,) the venal dispensations for pluralities, and for eating flesh 
meat in Lent, and on " fish days," (which dispensations were sold in 
the archbishop's court,) the impediments thrown in the way of the 
marriage of the clergy, the prohibition to testify against, to oppose 
or refuse conformity to those abuses, the restricting all ecclesiastical 
power to the prelates; and conclude by imploring them, "in the 
bowels of Jesus Christ," to purge the temple of God from such Popish 
abominations. In reply to this faithful appeal, poor Grindal and 
Home write a very penitent and submissive letter, which we cannot 
read over at this day without the most painful emotion at the condi- 
tion to which these men of God were reduced between their desire 
to serve God in the gospel of his Son, and their scruples of conscience 
against the antichristian impositions to which they were subjected. 
The drift of their letter was to show that they had no power to reform 
the evils complained of, (and which they condemn and deplore as much 
as their correspondents,) and that either they must remain as they 
are, or abandon their benefices, and see them filled by Papists, who 
would destroy the flock of Christ. In conclusion, they promise- 
but we must give their promise in a literal translation — " We shall 
do the utmost that in us lies, as already we have done, in the last 
sessions of parliament and of convocation, and that, even although 
our future exertions should be as fruitless as the past, that all the 
errors and abuses which yet remain in the Church of England shall 
be corrected, expurgated and removed, according to the rule and 
standard of the word of God." In a preceding part of their letter 
they had said, that " although they might not be able to effect all 
they desired, they should not yet cease their exertions until they had 
thrust down into hell, whence they had arisen," certain abuses which 
they mention. And are these, then, the men who are to be regarded 
as approving of the extent to which reformation had been carried in 
the Church of England? 

We have given the sentiments of the divines of Zurich at the greater 
length, because some of their letters are, till this day, perverted, as 
they were at the time when they were written. Had this been done 
only by Collier, Heylin, and their school, we should not take any 
notice of it in our present sadly limited space. But when such writers 
as Strype, Cardwell, and Short, lend their names to palm such im- 
positions upon the public mind, it is necessary at once to show what 
was the real state of the case. Dr. McCrie (Life of Knox, note R.) 
has charged the Anglican prelates with having given " partial repre- 
sentations" to the foreign divines for the purpose of obtaining their 
sanction to the state of matters in England : and any man of com- 
petent knowledge of the subject, who reads over their letters, must be 
painfully aware, that, although they may not have designed it, yet, as 
was so very natural in their circumstances, they did write in a manner 
which could not but lead their correspondents into the grossest mis- 
takes. 



XXXV1H THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

of the Church of England. We should much deepen 
the impression we desire to produce upon our readers, 
had we space also to give the sentiments of the more 
evangelical prelates; of Parkhurst, for example, who, 
in a letter to Gualter in 1573, fervently exclaims, — 
"Oh, would to God, would to God, that now at last 
the people of England would in good earnest pro- 
pound to themselves to follow the Church of Zurich 
as the most perfect pattern;"* or of his scholar and 
fellow-prelate Jewell, who calls the habits enjoined 
upon the ministers of the Church of England, " thea- 
trical vestments — ridiculous trifles and relics of the 
Amorites," and satirizes those who submitted to wear 
them as men u without mind, sound doctrine or morals, 
by which to secure the approbation of the people, and 
who, therefore, wished to gain their plaudits by wear- 
ing a comical stage dress."t But it is unnecessary. 
The following passage from a High Church writer of 
the present day concedes all we desire to establish. 
After having condemned the Erastianism of Cranmer, 
and the want of what he terms " catholic" feeling 
and spirit in his coadjutors, and having denounced 
Hooper as " an obstinate Puritan — a mere dogged 
Genevan preacher," (the most opprobrious epithets the 
writer can bestow,) and Coverdale as " a thorough 
Puritan and Genevan, who officiated at the consecra- 
tion of Archbishop Parker in his black gown" (in 
italics, to indicate the sacrilegious profanation of the 
act — we wonder whether it invalidated his share, or 
the whole of the proceeding,) the writer proceeds 
thus : — 

"The immediate successors, however, of the Re- 
formers, as often happens in such cases, went further 
than their predecessors did, and were more deeply 
imbued with the feelings of the day. The Episcopate, 
in the first part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, were 
successors of Hooper and Coverdale, almost more 
than they were of Cranmer and Ridley; indeed, it was 

* Strype's An. ii. 286-342. 

+ See many such passages in Dr. McCrie's note last referred to, 
and the letters in Burnet's Records. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. XXXIX 

only her strong Tudor arm that kept them within 
decent bounds," (that is, that kept them from assimi- 
lating the Church of England to the other Reform- 
ed Churches. ) " The greater part of them posi- 
tively objected to the surplice — including Sandys, 
Grindal, Pilkington, Jewell, Home, Parkhurst, Ben- 
tham, and all the leading men who were for sim- 
plifying our Church ceremonial in that and other 
respects, according to the Genevan, (that is, Pres- 
byterian) model ; Archbishop Parker almost stand- 
ing alone with the queen in her determination to up- 
hold the former.'' * (And we have already seen that 
he was about as little enamoured of them as his co- 
adjutors.) 

After having referred to some of Jewell's letters to 
the foreign divines written against the Anglican cere- 
monies, the writer makes an observation which ought 
to be ever present to the minds of those who read the 
censures of Jewell and his contemporaries. "It was 
no Roman Catholic ritual, we repeat, of which he 
thus expressed himself, but our own doubly reformed 
prayer-book — the divine service as now performed '."* 
Who now are the lineal descendants and proper re- 
presentatives of the Anglican Reformers ? — the Puri- 
tans who desired further reformation, or those who 
so loudly praise our < ; Catholic Church, our apostolic 
establishment," and vigorously resist every attempt 
to amend the most glaring corruptions in the Church 
of England ? We wish the evangelical party would 
ponder the answer that question must receive : — we 
say, the evangelical party, for we are aware that 
high churchmen, if they moved at all, would move 
in the direction of Rome. 

Having thus shown the opinions of the prelates 
regarding the constitution and ceremonies of the 
Church of England, let us now show the opinions of 
the inferior clergy': And here one fact may stand 
for all. In the year 1562, a petition was presented 
to the lower house of convocation, signed by thirty- 
two members, most of them exiles, and the best men 

* British Critic for October 1842, 330, 331. 



Xl THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

in the kingdom, praying for the following alterations 
in the service of the Church of England. 1. That 
organs might be disused, responses in the " reading 
psalms" discontinued, and the people allowed to sing 
the psalms in metre, as was the custom on the conti- 
nent, and had also been practised by the English 
exiles, not only when there, but after they had re- 
turned to their native land, and as was also the case 
among the Puritans when they non-conformed to (for 
they never seceded or dissented from) the Church of 
England, of which they could never be said to have 
been bona fide members. 2. That none but minis- 
ters should be allowed to baptize, and that the sign 
of the cross should be abolished. 3. That the impo- 
sition of kneeling at the communion should be left to 
the discretion of each bishop in his own diocese ; and 
one reason assigned for this part of the petition, was, 
that this posture was abused to idolatry by the igno- 
rant and superstitious populace. 4. That copes and 
surplices should be disused, and the ministers made 
to wear some comely and decent garment, (such as 
the Geneva gown, which all the early Puritans wore.) 
5. That, as they expressed it themselves, " The min- 
isters of the word and sacrament be not compelled to 
wear such gowns and caps as the enemies of Christ's 
gospel have chosen to be the special array of their 
priesthood." 6. That certain words in Article 33, 
be mitigated, which have since been omitted alto- 
gether. 7. That saints' days might be abolished, or 
kept only for public worship, (and not as was then 
the case for feasting, jollity, superstition, and sin,) 
after which ordinary labour might be carried on. 

This petition was eventually withdrawn, and an- 
other very much to the same purpose substituted for 
it. This second petition prayed for the following 
alterations: — 1. That saints' days be abolished, but 
all Sundays, and the principal feasts of Christ be kept 
holy. 2. That the liturgy he read audibly, and not 
mumbled over inaudibly, as had been done by the 
massing priests. 3. That the sign of the cross in bap- 
tism be abolished as tending to superstition. 4. That 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Xli 

kneeling at the communion be left to the discretion 
of the ordinary. 5. That ministers may use only a 
surplice, or other decent garment in public worship, 
and the administration of the sacraments. 6. That 
organs be removed from churches. 

After a protracted and vigorous debate, these arti- 
cles were put to the vote, when forty-three, most of 
them exiles, voted that the petition be granted, and 
only thirty-five against it; thus leaving a clear ma- 
jority of eight in favour of a further reformation. 
When, however, proxies were called for, only fifteen 
appeared for, while twenty-four appeared against the 
petition, being, on the whole, fifty-eight for, and fifty- 
nine against, leaving a majority of one for rejecting 
the prayer of the petition.* 

There is one point mentioned in the minutes of 
convocation, an extract from which is given, both by 
Burnet and Cardwell, which must be kept in view, 
to enable us to arrive at a correct conception of the 
sentiments of those who voted against the above 
articles. In the minute, it is distinctly mentioned, 
that the most of those who voted against granting the 
prayer of the petition, did so, not upon the merits, but 
only from a feeling that since the matters in debate 
had been imposed by public authority of parliament 
and the queen, it was not competent for convocation 
to take up the subject at all Thus, the motion for 
which they really voted was, not that the abuses 
complained of should be continued, but that the con- 
vocation had no power to alter them. A second sec- 
tion of those who voted against the articles, was 
composed of those who had held cures under Ed- 
ward, and had a hand in the public affairs of his 
reign, and, who having remained in England during , 
the reign of Mary, had not seen the purer churches 
on the continent, and regarded the reformation of 
Edward as sufficiently perfect. A third section of 
the majority consisted of those who held benefices 
under Mary, and who were of course Papists in their 

• * Strype's An. i. 500 — 6. Burnet iii. 454, 455. Records, Bk. vi. 
No. 74. Collier, vi. 371— .'3. CardweH'a Hist, of Conf. 117—120. 



Xlii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

hearts, and would therefore vote against any further 
reformation. After we have thus analyzed the par- 
ties, and weighed, instead of numbering, the votes, 
and when, besides, we bear in mind that a majority 
of those who heard the reasoning upon the matters 
in dispute, voted for further reformation, it is easy to 
see on whose side truth and justice lay. 

There is, besides, another point to which Dr. Card- 
well has called our attention.* which we regard of 
the very highest importance, and to which, conse- 
quently, we call the special attention of our readers. 
It is this, that although, since the time of Burnet and 
Strype, it has been always said that the number of 
those who voted for the Articles was fifty-eight, yet, 
when we count them fairly, they are fifty-nine, pre- 
cisely the number who voted against them. Now, if 
we give the prolocutor (the same a§ our moderator,) 
a casting vote, No well, dean of St.Paul's, who was 
prolocutor of that convocation and voted in favour of 
the Articles, and would of course give his casting 
vote on the same side, this would give a majority in 
favour of further reformation. 

But how are we to account for the fact that, if 
thus the numbers were equal, that fact should not be 
known to the members ? We should be glad to hear 
of any other way of solving the difficulty, but the 
only mode of doing so that occurs to us, is to suppose 
that Parker or the queen had recourse to the artifice 
employed by Charles I. in the Scottish parliament, 
viz., concealed the roll and declared that the majority 
was in their favour, while it was against them, as 
was clearly seen when the original came into the 
hands of the public. That Parker was capable of 
the manoBUvre, no man who knows his character can 
for one moment question : And that Elizabeth would 
feel at the least as little scruple in doing so as Charles 
I., he that doubts may consult the note at the foot of 
the page.t 

* Vt supra, p. 120, note. 

t In 155!) a bill passed through parliament authorizing the queeri^ 
to restore to their former cures, such of the returned exiles as ha<T 
been unlawfully deprived ; that is, by Mary on account of their Protes- 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xliti 

From this induction of facts it is most abundantly 
manifest that the prelates and the great majority of 
the leading members of the lower house of convoca- 
tion, were decidedly in favour of a further reforma- 
tion. It only further remains to finish this branch, of 
our argument, that we show the feelings of the lead- 
ing statesmen of the kingdom. This may be done 
in the following passage from one who is certainly a 
competent enough witness so far as knowledge is con- 
cerned, and whom no one will accuse of any partiali- 
ty towards the Puritans. After stating that several of 
the bishops were in favour of the Puritans, Hallam* 
goes on to say, 

" They/' the Puritans, Ci had still more effectual 

tantism. " Yet," says Strype, (Annals i. 99,) "I do not find it was 
enacted and passed into law." It must therefore have been clandes- 
tinely suppressed by Elizabeth, who both hated and feared the Pro- 
testantism of the exiles. She acted very much in the same way in 
regard to the re-enacting of Edward's statute in favour of clerical 
marriages, (Ibid. 118.) The convocation of 1575, among other arti- 
cles of reformaiion, breathing the spirit of Grindal who was just then 
raised to the primacy, passed the following, that none but ministers 
lawfully ordained should baptize, and that it should be lawful to 
marry at any period of the year: but Elizabeth cancelled both. 
(Strype's Grindal, 290 — 1.) We need not, however, multiply in- 
stances in which Elizabeth exercised this power, as it is admitted 
on all hands that she both claimed and exercised it. (Cardwell's 
Documentary Annals, ii. 171 — 2, note.) The case most in point is 
the following, along with the liberty we have already seen she took 
with the first draft of the liturgy. Our readers are aware of the 
controversy as to how the celebrated clause, ("the Church hath 
power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies 
of faith,") crept into the Twentieth Article of the Church of Eng- 
land, when it occurs neither in the first printed edition of the Arti- 
cles, nor in the* draft of them which was passed by convocation, and 
which is still in existence, with the autograph signatures of the mem- 
bers. It is now the universal belief that Elizabeth inserted this 
clause, as well as cancelled the whole of the Thirty-ninth Article, 
whose title sufficiently indicates its contents, viz. "the ungodly 
(impii) do not eat the body of Christ in the sacrament of the sup- 
per," a dogma which Elizabeth, who believed in transubstantiation, 
could not admit. (Sec Lamb's Historical and Critical Essay on the 
thirty-nine Articles, p. 35, &c. Cardwell's Hist, of Conf. 21,22, 
note. Cardwell's Synodalia, i. 38, 39, note. Cardwell's Doc. An. ii. 
171, note. Bishop Short's Sketch, &c., 327, note.) The person who 
could thus act was certainly capable of falsifying the votes of convo- 
cation, 1562. 

* Constitutional Hist, of England, i. 256, 257. 



xllV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

support in the Queen's council. The Earl of Leices- 
ter, who possessed more power than any one, to sway 
her wavering and capricious temper, the Earls of Bed- 
ford, Huntington, and Warwick, regarded as the 
steadiest Protestants among the aristocracy, the wise 
and grave Lord Keeper Bacon, the sagacious Wals- 
ingham, the experienced Sadler, the zealous Knollys, 
considered these objects of Parker's severity (the 
Puritans) either as demanding a purer worship than 
had been established in the Church, or at least as 
worthy, by their virtues, of more indulgent treatment. 
Cecil himself, though on intimate terms with the arch- 
bishop, and concurring generally in his measures, 
was not far removed from the latter way of thinking, 
if his natural caution and extreme dread, at this junc- 
ture, of losing the Queen's favour, had permitted 
him more unequivocally to express it." 

Mr. Hall am by no means does full justice to the 
sentiments of Cecil. No one can read his correspon- 
dence with the Puritans, and his private letters to the 
prelates, without being satisfied that that great states- 
man fully concurred in all the general principles of 
the former. 

In regard again to 

" The upper ranks among the laity, setting aside 
courtiers and such as took little interest in the dis- 
putes," these, says Mr. Hallam, " were chiefly divided 
between those attached to the ancient Church, and 
those who wished for further reformation in the new. 
I conceive the Church of England party, that is, the 
party adverse to any species of ecclesiastical change, 
to have been the least numerous of the three, (that is, 
Puritan, Popish, and Anglican,) during this reign, 
still excepting, as I have said, the neutrals who com- 
monly make a numerical majority, and are counted 
along with the dominant religion. . . . The 
Puritans, or at least, those who rather favoured them, 
had a. majority among the Protestant gentry in the 
Queen's days. It is agreed on all hands (and is quite 
manifest) that they predominated in the House of 
Commons. But that house was (then) composed, as 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xlv 

it has ever been, of the principal landed proprietors, 
and as much represented the general wish of the com- 
munity when it demanded a further reform in reli- 
gious matters, as on any other subjects. One would 
imagine by the manner in which some (that is unscru- 
pulous high churchmen) express themselves, that the 
discontented were a small fraction, who, by some un- 
accountable means, in despite of the government and 
the nation, formed a majority of all the parliaments 
under Elizabeth and her two successors." 

Who now then constituted the real Church of Eng- 
land party? Elizabeth chiefly — a host in herself — 
aided by all the Popish, immoral and irreligious per- 
sons in the kingdom, whether lay or clerical. 

Lest our readers should fancy that we have been 
all this time describing merely the transition state of 
the Church of England before she became fully or- 
ganized as she is now established, — a state which is 
interesting in the present day only as it serves to in- 
dicate to a philosophic inquirer, in the same manner 
as a fossil does to a comparative anatomist the by- 
gone condition of some primeval state of society; — in 
order to prevent such a mistake, we beg leave to re- 
mind our readers that we are describing the present 
constitution of the Church of England as by law estab- 
lished. The acts of supremacy and uniformity are 
still in operation, and the Anglican Church, in all the 
principles on which it was based, and in all points 
of practical importance, continues as it stood at the 
death of Elizabeth. Nay, we hesitate not to assert, 
that it is now nearer to the Church of Rome than it 
was then. Of all the alterations demanded by the 
Puritans, the only one of any practical moment was 
made at the Hampton court conference, when the 
"royal theologian," certainly not to please the Puri- 
tans, forbade any but ministers to administer bap- 
tism. But this improvement is more than counter- 
balanced by the anti-protestant alterations made upon 
the prayer-book by the convocation of 1661, and that 
for the express purpose of rendering it for ever im- 
possible for the Presbyterians to think of entering the 



Xlvi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

Church of England. Of these alterations, one may- 
be mentioned as showing the animus of that convo- 
cation, next to that of 1689, the most infamous, not 
©Ten excepting that of 1640, that ever assembled in 

England. Down to that period there was compara- 
tively l»ui little of the apocrypha prescribed in the 
calendar, and even that little, by an "admonition" 
prefixed i" the Second Book of Homilies in 1564, the 
officiating clergyman was not only authorized to omit 
and substitute in its place some more suitable portion 
of canonical Scripture, but he was recommended to 
do so.* The convocation of 1661, however, and the 
act of uniformity based upon their proceedings, not 
only introduced other portions of the apocrypha into 
the daily lessons, but rendered it imperative upon 
every clergyman to read them.t We have paid some 
little attention to the subject, and have no fear that 
we shall be contradicted by any competent judge, 
when we aliirm that the constitution and formularies 
of the Church of England are now less Protestant than 
they were left by Parker, Whitgift, and Elizabeth. 
The progress of enlightened opinions, and the in- 
fluence of a close contact with the evangelism of the 
Anglican non-conformists, and of the Church of Scot- 
land, have, it must not be concealed, to some, extent, 
practically modified the constitutional influence of the 
Anglican formularies. But how slight the influence 
of these disturbing causes upon the minds of Anglican 
churchmen are. in comparison with the intense mo- 
mentum of their own constitution, may be estimated 
by any man who will study the history of Laud and 
his times, the history of the Restoration, of the Revo- 
lution, and in our own times, ponder over the unpar- 
alellcd rapidity with which Puseyism has circulated, 
the wide spread ramification, and the all but universal 
reception to which it has already attained; a circum- 
stance that must he unaccountable to those who are 

' CanluclPs Hist. ofCotrf 21, 22, DOte. 

t Caidwcll'.-. list, of Conr*. 378—392, where the various altera- 
tions tin a made in llic liturgy may be read at large, or the " Syno- 
dalia" by the same writer, ii. 633— 686, where copious extracts from 
the original minute may be seen. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xlvii 

unacquainted with the constitution and history of the 
Church of England, but of the easiest possible solu- 
tion to those who are. Challenging contradiction, we 
once more affirm that, without altering one single 
canon, injunction, or rubric, or displacing one clause 
in her constitution, nay, only honestly and constitu- 
tionally carrying them out to their legitimate conse- 
quences and practical results, the Church of England 
might be made so to approximate to the Church of 
Rome, that it might matter little to a real Bible Pro- 
testant into which of them he might be required, under 
pain of persecution, to incorporate himself. Had the 
Puseyite leaders, instead of moving forward as they 
have avowedly done to take their stand upon the 
principles of the Church of Rome, contented them- 
selves with working out the constitutional though 
partially dormant principles of the Church of. England, 
their success would be all but certain. If they are 
ever defeated, it must be through the consequences 
to which this false movement must inevitably lead. 
The once all dominant cry, " No popery," is not yet 
so powerless, despite of all that has happened, but 
that many men who would blindly embrace whatever 
was proved to be bona fide Church-of-Englandism, 
will be shocked when required openly to embrace 
undisguised Romanism. 

We have found, then, that without a single excep- 
tion, all the first prelates of Elizabeth were dissatisfied 
with the constitution of the Church of England; that 
the most of them deliberated long and painfully be- 
fore they could be induced to accept preferments 
within her pale; and that the motive which principally 
induced them to conform was a hope that they might 
thus be able to complete the Reformation.* There 

* So little was Cranmcr satisfied with the state of the Church of 
England in his day, that he "had drawn up a book of prayers an 
hundred times more perfect than that which was then in being," 
(Edward's second liturgy,) and if the king had been spared a little ' 
longer, it is agreed on all hands it would have been introduced along 
with many other alterations. See Dr. Cardwell's Two Prayer- 
Bookfl, fitc. Compared, preface, 34-6. And yet the present prayer- 
book, as we have seen, is more Popish than that which Cranmer 
would reform. 



Xlviil THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

were others, however, still more enlightened, who saw 

farther into the intentions of Elizabeth, and who 
would not a< Anglican 

Church until they saw her further reformed. Among 
Of t<> speak of those who are known as avowed 
Puritans, may he mentioned Bishop Coverdale, 
Fox tlii- martyrologist. Parker used every means 
to indue.' Fox to conform, in order that tin 
influence of his name might prevail upon others to 
follow his example. "Bui the old man, producing 
tament in Greek, 'To this,' saith he, ' I 
will subscribe.' But when a subscription to the 
canons was required of him, he r< 1112:. 'I 

have nothing in the Church save a prebend at Satis* 
bury, and much good may it d^ you if you will take 
it away.' "t The best part of the inferior clergy again, 
who conformed, did so in the hope that the prelates 
whom they knew to be of their own sentiments would, 
now that they were elevated to places of power, be 
able to accomplish the further reformation which all so 
very ardently desired. Of all the true Protestants, not 
one would have consented to accept ;i preferment in 
_■ : i « ■ .- 1 1 1 Church, it he had been at the outset 
aware that no further reformation was to be accom- 
plished. What, then, it may be asked, continued to 
retain them in her communion, when they (bund that 
»uld not reform that Church? It is a delicate 
m, hut we have no hesitation in rendering an 
answer. 

The deteriorating influence of high stations of 

honour, power, and wealth, has been rendered pro- 

verbial by the experience of mankind; but never was 

it more disastrously manifested than by Elizabeth's 

ops. Not one of them had escaped the cor- 

■ Strvj.c's Ann.ii. 43; 

t Fuller*! Ch. Hist 

I hitgirt about filling up some bishoprics then 
icb worldlincss in many that were otherwise 
affected before they came to cathedral churches, thai he (eared the 
places altered the nun." Strypc's Whitgift, i. 338. He makes 
very much the same complaint to Grindal in 1575. Strypi 
dal,281. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. xllX 

rupting influence of their stations.* Having so far 
overcome the scruples they at first entertained against 
conformity., not it must be feared without doing vio- 
lence to their convictions, it was but natural that they 
should entertain not the most kindly feelings towards 
those whose consistency of conduct not only would 
degrade them in their own eyes, but open up afresh 
the wounds yet raw in their consciences. The apos- 
tate is ever the most vindictive persecutor of his for- 
mer brethren. Besides, no one can fail to have 
noticed that when a man has irretrievably committed 
himself to a cause which he formerly opposed, he is 
compelled, by the necessity of his position, to become 
more stringent and inflexible in his proceedings than 
the man who is now pursuing only the course on 
which he first embarked. Bishop Short, in a passage 
already quoted, has candidly admitted, that " when 
Parker and the other bishops had begun to execute 
the laws against non-conformists, they must have been 
more than men if they could divest their own minds 
of that personality which every one must feel when 
engaged in a controversy in which the question really 
is, whether he shall be able to succeed in carrying his 
plans into execution." We could assign other reasons 
for the conduct of Elizabeth's first bishops, but we 
entertain too high a regard for what they had been, 
to take any pleasure in exposing their faults. 

What now would these great and good men do 
were they, with their avowed principles, when they 
returned from exile, to appear in our day? Would 
they praise the Church of England as " our primitive 
and apostolic Church, — the bulwark of the Reforma- 
tion, — the safeguard of Protestantism, and the glory 
of Christendom?" as some who boast of being their 
successors continue to do. Would they even accept 
cures in the Church of England, knowing, as all 
her ministers now do, that no further reformation is 
so much as to be mooted, — nay, that it must not be 

* Sec ;i painful letter on this subject from Sampson to Grindal. 
Strypc's Parker, ii. 37G, 377. 



1 THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

so much as acknowledged that it is required? He 
knows neither the constitution of the Church of Eng- 
land, nor the character of the reformers, who hesitates 
for one moment to answer, and with the most marked 
emphasis, they ivould not. 

And what B lesson of solemn warning do the con- 
sequences of a compromise of principles, as seen in 
the subsequent history of the Church of England, 
read to our own ministers in their present arduous 
Struggle. The second set of bishops appointed by 
Elizabeth were, without a single exception, men of 
more Erastian sentiments, of more lax theology, of 
more Popish tendencies, than their predecessors. The 
first prelates had been trained amid the advancing 
reformation of Edward, and among the Preshyterians 
on the continent, and had imbibed the sentiments of 
their associates. But their successors had been trained 
in the Church of England, and bore the impress of 
her character. And such would also be the case in 
our own Church, were our ministers, by an unhal- 
lowed submission, to yield to the antichristian invasion 
of the Church's rights and liberties now attempted. 
To these onr ministers, God has committed a glorious 
cause. May they be found worthy to maintain it. 
Their deeds arc before men and angels. Future his- 
torians shall record their acts, and inscribe their names 
in the glorious muster-roll of martyrs and confessors, 
or denounce them to eternal infamy. We shall watch 
their proceedings with an interest which the shock of 
armed empires would not excite in our bosoms, and, 
by God's grace, shall lend our aid to make known to 
posterity how they have fought the good fight and 
kept the faith. The arena of their struggle may ap- 
pear obscure and contracted. But it is the Ther- 
mopylae of Christendom. On them, and on their 
. under God, it depends, whether worse than 
Asiatic barbarism and despotism are to overwhelm 
Europe, or light, and life, and liberty, to become the 
birthright of the nations. May the Captain of the 
host of Israel ever march forward at their head. 
May the blue banner of the covenant, unstained by 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. li 

one blot, be victorious in their hands, as it was of 
yore. May the sword of the Lord, and of Gideon, 
now unsheathed, never return to its scabbard, until the 
Church of Scotland shall have vindicated her rights, 
and established her liberties on an immovable basis. 
No surrender ! No compromise ! Better the mountain 
side, like our fathers, and freedom of communion with 
our God, than an Erastian establishment, which would 
no longer be a Church, — than a sepulchral temple, 
from which the living God had fled. 

We return from this digression, (for which we make 
no apology, — we would despise the man that would 
require it,) to relate the internal condition of the 
Church of England at and after the accession of 
Elizabeth. 

One fact will prove, to every man who regards 
" Christ crucified as the power of God and the wis- 
dom of God unto salvation," that the Church of Eng- 
land was at this time in the most wretched condition 
imaginable, both moral and spiritual. Of nine thou- 
sand four hundred clergymen, of all grades, then bene- 
ficed in that Church, and all, of course, Papists, being 
the incumbents of Mary's reign, only one hundred 
and ninety-two, of whom only eighty were parochial, 
resigned their livings; the rest, as much Papists as 
ever, and now, in addition, unblushing hypocrites, 
who subscribed what they did not believe, and sub- 
mitted to what they could not approve, remained in 
their cures, and became the ministers of the Protes- 
tant (?) Church of England.* We should do these 
nine thousand two hundred and eight who remained 
in their cures, an honour to which they have no claim, 
were we to compare them to the most ignorant, scan- 
dalous, and profligate priesthood at present in Europe. 
Many of them did not understand the offices they had 
been accustomed to " mumble" at the altar. Some 

* The following is Strype's list of those who resigned, — yiz., 14 
bishops, 18 deans, 14 archdeacons, 15 heads of colleges, 50 pre- 
bendaries, 80 rectors, 6 abbots, priors, and abbesses, in all 192. 
Annals, i. 106. Burnet, ii. 620, makes them only 189. Collier, vi. 
p. 252, following, as is his wont, Popish authorities, when they can 
add credit to their own Church, makes them about 250. 



Ui THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

of them could not sign their names, or even read the 
English liturgy. Yet into the hands of these men 
did Elizabeth and her prelates commit the immortal 
souls of the people of England. And if at any time 
the people, shocked at the immoralities and Papistry 
of their parish priest, attended ordinances under some 
more Protestant minister in the neighbourhood, they 
were compelled, by fines and imprisonment, to return 
to their own parish church. 

When, in the course of a few years, several of these 
papistico-protestant priests had died, and others of 
them had fled out of the kingdom, there were no 
properly qualified ministers to replace them. Patrons 
sold the benefices to laymen, retaining the best part 
Of the fruits in their own hands. Thus the parishes 
remained vacant. Strype, speaking of the state of 
the diocese of Bangor in 1565, says, "As for Bangor, 
that diocese was much out of order, there being no 
preaching used." And two years afterwards the 
bishop wrote to Parker, that " he had but two preach- 
ers in his whole diocese," the livings being in the 
hands of laymen.* In 1562 Parkhurst of Norwich 
wrote Parker, in answer to the inquiries of the privy 
council, that in his diocese there were 434 parish 
churches vacant, and that many chapels of ease had 
fallen into ruins.t Cox of Ely, in 1560, wrote the 
archbishop, that in his diocese there were 150 cures 
of all sorts, of which only "52 were duly served," — 
many of them, of course, only by readers, — 34 were 
vacant, 13 had neither rector nor vicar, and 57 were 
possessed by non-residents. "So pitiable and to be 
lamented," exclaims Cox, "is the face of this diocese; 
and if, in other places, it be so too," (and so it was,) 
"most miserable indeed is the condition of the Church 
of England."} We never can think of the condition 
of England, — when thus darkness covered the earth, 
and thick darkness the people, and when, emphati- 
cally, the blind led the blind, — without admiring grati- 

* Strype's Parker, i. -101, Cm. \ Strype's Parker, i. 143, 144. 
t Strypc's An. i. ~>'.l*, 540. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lift 

tude to that God who did not altogether remove his 
candlestick, and leave the whole nation to perish, 
through the crimes of their rulers, civil and eccle- 
siastical. 

In order to keep the churches open, and afford even 
the semblance of public worship to the people, the 
prelates were compelled to license, as readers, a set 
of illiterate mechanics, who were able to read through 
the prayers without spelling the hard words. * The 
people, however, could not endure these immoral, 
base-born, illiterate readers ; and then, as if the mere 
act of ordination could confer upon them all the re- 
quisite qualifications, "not a few mechanics, altogether 
as unlearned as the most objectionable of those eject- 
ed, were preferred to dignities and livings."! The 
scheme, however politic, failed, through the inde- 
corous manners, and the immoral lives, and the gross 
ignorance, of these upstart priests. £' And then an 
order was issued to the bishop of London to ordain 
no more mechanics, because of the scandals they had 
brought upon religion ;§ but the necessity of the case 
compelled the provincial bishops still to employ lay 
readers, and ordain mechanics to read the prayers. 

Such was the condition of England when Parker, 
partly goaded on by the queen, and partly by his own 
sullen despotism, commenced a course of persecutions, 
suspensions, and silencing against the Puritans, who 
were the only preachers in the kingdom. In January 
1564, eight were suspended in the diocese of London. 
It was hoped that this example would overawe the 
rest, and three months afterwards the London clergy 
were summoned again to subscribe to the canons, and 
conform to all the usages of the Church of England ; 
but thirty refused, and were, of course, suspended. || 
A respite of eight months was given to the rest; and 
then in January 1656 they were cited, and 37 having 
refused to subscribe, were suspended.1T These, as we 

* Strype's An. i. 202, 203. || Strype's Grindal, 144, 146. 

+ Collier, vi. 264. T Ibid. 154. 

t Strype's Parker, i. 180. 

§ Strype's Grindal, 60. Collier, vi. 313. 



Uv THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

may well believe, were, even in the estimation of 
Parker himself, and. indeed, as he acknowledged, the 
best men and the ablest preachers in the diocese.* 
The insults offered, and the cruelties inflicted upon 
these men, would, had we space to detail them, in- 
tensate the indignation of our readers against their 
ruthless persecutors. 

The silencing of such preachers, and the consequent 
desolation in the Church excited the attention of the 
nation. All men who had any regard for the ordi- 
nances of God, were shocked at the proceedings of 
the primate, and bitter complaints were made of him 
to the privy council. Elizabeth herself ordered Cecil 
to write him on the subject. Parker sullenly replied, 
that this was nothing more than he had foreseen from 
the first, and that when the queen had ordered him to 
press uniformity, "he had told her, that these precise 
folks would offer their goods, and even their bodies to 
prison, rather than they would relent. "t And yet 
Parker, who could anticipate their conduct, could 
neither appreciate their conscientiousness, nor respect 
their firmness. 

The persecutions commenced in London soon spread 
over the whole kingdom. We have already seen the 
most destitute condition of the diocese of Norwich, in 
which four hundred and thirty-four parish churches 
were vacant, and many chapels of ease fallen into 
ruins. Will it be credited, that in these circumstances 
thirty-six ministers, almost the whole preaching min- 
isters in the diocese, were, in one day, suspended, for 
refusing subscription to the anti-christian impositions 
of the prolates?| This is but a specimen of what took 
place throughout the kingdom. And when the peo- 
ple, having no pastor to teach them, met together to 
read the Scriptures, forthwith a thundering edict came 
down from the primate, threatening them with fines 
and imprisonment if they dared to pray together or 
read the word of (>o(\. In a certain small village a 
revival took place, under the ministrations of a reader, 

* Strypc's Parker, i. 429. t Strype's Parker, i. 448. t Ibid. ii. 341 . 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lv 

so illiterate that he could not sign his own name. As 
always happens under such circumstances, the people 
formed fellowship meetings. No sooner was this known 
than they were summoned to answer for such violations 
of canonical order. In a simple memorial, which would 
melt a heart of stone, these pious peasants stated to the 
inquisitors, that they only met together in the evenings, 
after the work of the day was over, to devote the time 
they formerly misspent in drinking and sin, to the wor- 
ship of God, and the reading of his word. Their judges 
were deaf to their petitions and representations, and 
forbade them absolutely to meet any longer for such 
purposes, leaving it to be inferred, by no far-fetched 
deductions, that a man might violate the laws of God, 
without impunity ; but wo be unto him that should 
break the injunctions of the prelates.* 

And what was the crime for which these Puritans 
were suspended, sequestered, fined, imprisoned, and 
some of them put to death? Simply because they 
would not acknowledge that man, whether prelate, 
primate, or prince, has authority to alter the constitu- 
tion of God's church, to prescribe rites and modes of 
" will- worship," and administration of sacraments, 
different from what He had appointed in his word. 
Nothing but gross ignorance, or grosser dishonesty, 
will lead any man to say, as has been said, and con- 
tinues to be said down to this day, and that not by 
ministers of the Church of England alone, but by 
others of whom better things might be expected,! that 
the Puritans refused to remain in their ministry merely 
because of the imposition of " square caps, copes, and 
surplices;" or even, which are of higher moment, 
because of the " cross in baptism," and kneeling at 
the communion; these things being considered simply 
in themselves. What they condemned and resisted was 
the principle, that man has authority to alter the 
economy of God's house. " Considering, therefore," 
said the ministers of London in 1565, in a defence 

* Strype's Parker, 381-5. 

t See Orme's Life of Owen, commented on by Dr. McCrie in his 
Miscellaneous Works, pp. 465, 466. 



Ivi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

they published of their own conduct, * considering, 
therefore, that at this lime, by admitting the out- 
ward apparel, and ministering garments of the Pope's 
church, not only the Christian liberty should be mani- 
festly infringed, but the whole religion of Christ would 
be brought to be esteemed no other thing than the 
pleasure of princes, they (the London "ministers) 
thought it their duty, being ministers of God's word 
and sacraments, utterly to refuse" to submit to the 
required impositions. But if the prelates were deter- 
mined to proceed in their infatuated career, then these 
enlightened servants of God professed their willing- 
ness " to submit themselves to any punishment the 
laws did appoint, that so they might teach by their 
example true obedience both to God and man, and 
yet to keep the Christian liberty sound, and show the 
Christian religion to be such, that no prince or poten- 
tate might alter the same."* 

When Sampson and Humphreys were required to 
subscribe and submit to the prescribed impositions, 
they refused upon the following, among other ac- 
counts:— " If," they said, "we should grant to wear 
priests' apparel, then it might and would be required 
at our hands to have shaven crowns, and to receive 
more Papistical abuses. Therefore it is best, at the 
first, not to wear priests' apparel."t It was the prin- 
ciple involved in these impositions they opposed. 
And well are we assured, that had it not been for the 
resistance to the first attempts to enslave the con- 
science, which were made by these glorious confessors 
and martyrs, other and still more hateful abuses of 
Popery would have been perpetuated in the Angli- 
can church. Only grant the principle, that man lias 
tli ( " right to make such impositions, and where is the 
application of the principle to find its limit? 

And as to the stale objection, that these men relin- 
quished their ministry for frivolous rites and habits, 
it is enough to reply, that the objection is not founded 
upon truth. 

* Apud Strype's An. ii. 1GG, 167. t Strype's Parker, i. 340. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Mi 

" As touching that point," (the habits,) says Cart- 
wright, "whether the minister should wear it, although 
it be inconvenient; the truth is, that I dare not be au- 
thor to any to forsake his pastoral charge for the in- 
convenience thereof, considering that this charge (the 
ministry) being an absolute commandment of the 
Lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple incon- 
venience or uncomeliness of a thing which, in its own 
nature, is indifferent. . . . When it is laid in the 
scales with the preaching of the word of God, which 
is so necessary to him who is called thereunto, that a 
woe hangeth on his head if he do not preach it ; it is 
of less importance than for the refusal of it we should 
let go so necessary a duty."* 

We might challenge their accusers, whether Bro wn- 
ist or Prelatist, to show us sentiments more enlight- 
ened or more consistently maintained, since the world 
began. 

We have said so much upon this point, because we 
do not mean at present to enter upon a formal defence 
of the Puritans, although we may, perchance, do so 
elsewhere, and at greater length, hereafter, if God 
spare us. W r e have done this also to prevent our 
readers from being carried away by the oft-repeated 
libels of pert pretenders to liberality, or of servile con- 
formists to hierarchical impositions, against the best 
men that England has ever produced. 

The universities did little or nothing to provide 
ministers for the necessities of the times. The condi- 
tion of Oxford at the accession of Elizabeth was 
deplorable in the extreme. t In 1563 Sampson, Hum- 
phreys, and Kingsmill, three Puritans, were the only 
ministers who could preach, resident in Oxford :± and 
as if to deliver over that university to the unrestrained 
sway of Popery, the two former were ejected, while 
Papists swarmed in all the colleges. In one college, 
(Exeter,) in 1578, out of eighty resident members, 

* Rest of Second Rcplie to Whitgift, ed. 1577, p. 262. 
t See Jewell's Letters to Bullinger and Peter Martyr on the State 
of Oxford ; Burnet's Records, bk. vi. 48, 56. 
t Strype's Parker, i. 313. 



lviii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

there were only four professed Protestants.* When- 
ever a Puritan was discovered, lie was instantly 
expelled; but never, — so far as we could discover, 
and we paid attention to the point, — never, for mere 
Popery, was one Papist ejected, from either cure or 
college, throughout the whole reicrn of Elizabeth. 
Oxford continued thus the stronghold of Popery; and 
instead of providing ministers for the Church of Eng- 
land, it provided members for Popish colleges "be- 
yond the M'.is."t It is instructive, not less to the 
statesman and the philosopher, than to the divine, to 
find the self-propagating power of error, and the ten- 
dency to conserve corruption, which has been mani- 
fested in that celebrated seat of learning. Whenever 
Popery is assailed, it uniformly finds a safe retreat in 
Oxford. 

In the reign of Edward, Cambridge had received a 
larger diffusion of the gospel than the rival university. 
Almost all the first prelates of Elizabeth had been 
educated on the banks of the Cam, and all the princi- 
pal preachers of the same period had been trained in 
the same place. Cambridge, in fact, alone with Lon- 
don, was the head quarters of Puritanism, not less 
among the undergraduates, than the heads and mem- 
bers. Prom a faculty which had been granted by the 
Pope to that university, to license twelve preachers 
annually, who might officiate in any part of the king- 
dom, without having their licences countersigned by 
the prelates, Cambridge seemed destined to be the sal- 
vationof England. The Protestant prelates, however, 
could not tolerate a licence to preach, which even 
their Popish predecessors had patronized, and never 
e< ased until they had deprived Cambridge of its privi- 
lege. TS'ol satisfied with this prevention of preaching, 
Parker and Ins successor determined to root out Puri- 
tanism from its stronghold ; and as they had silenced 
its preachers in London, so they silenced its professors 
at Cambridge. Cartwright, Johnson, Dering, Brown, 
Wilcox, and their fellows, were expelled, some of 

* Strype's An. ii. 196, 197. t Ibid. 390, 391. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lix 

them imprisoned, and some of them driven into ban- 
ishment. The salt being thus removed, the body 
sunk into partial corruption. Of Cambridge, however, 
it is right that it should be recorded, that whatever of 
Protestantism England possesses, it owes to that uni- 
versity. How singular it is, that after the lapse of 
three centuries, the two English universities should, 
at this day, retain the distinguishing features which 
characterized them at the Reformation. 

In order to supply as much as they possibly could 
some instructors for their parishes, the Anglican pre- 
lates established in their dioceses what was called 
" prophesy ings," or " exercises," that is, monthly or 
weekly meetings of the clergy for mutual instruction 
in theology and pulpit ministrations; and the plan 
was found to work so admirably, that, as Grindal told 
the queen in 1576, when she commanded him to sup- 
press the prophesyings, and diminish the number of 
preachers, " where afore were not three able preach- 
ers, now are thirty meet to preach at Paul's Cross, and 
forty or fifty besides able to instruct their own cures."* 
The prophesyings, however, were suppressed, and the 
people left to perish for lack of knowledge. On a sur- 
vey of the condition of England at the time, nothing 
can more strongly convince a pious mind of the super- 
intendence of a gracious Providence, than that the 
kingdom did not sink into heathenism, or at least 
remain altogether Popish. 

The moral character of the Anglican priesthood 
was of a piece with their ignorance and Popish ten- 
dencies. This subject is so disgusting, and the disclo- 
sures we could make so shocking, that we hesitate 
whether it were not better to pass by the subject in 
total silence. We may give an instance or two, how- 
ever, as a specimen of what was the almost universal 
condition of this clergy, and our specimens are by no 
means the worst we could adduce. Sandys of Wor- 
cester, in his first visitation in 1560, found in the city 

* Strype's Grindal, Rec. B. ii. No. 9, p. 568. We recommend to 
our readers to peruse the whole of that noble letter, the noblest that 
was ever addressed to Elizabeth. 



IX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

of Worcester, five or six priests, " who kept five or 
six whores a-piece. ,M And wore they suspended? 
Our author gives not one single hint that they were. 
But had they preached the gospel at uncanonical 
hours, or saved .sinners in uncanonical garments, they 
would not only have 1 n deposed, but fined, impri- 
soned, and perhaps banished or even put to death. 
The laws of God might he violated with impunity, 
hut wo unto him who broke the laws of Elizabeth 
and Parker. Again, in L559, at a commission ap- 
pointed to visit the province of York, comprising the 
whole of the north and east of England, with the 
diocese of Chester, which includes Lancashire, " the 
presentments," that is, the informations lodged against 
the incumbents •• were most frequent, almost in "every 
parish, about fornication, and keeping other women 
besides their wives, and for having bastard children."t 
" As to Bangor, that diocese was much out of order, 
there being no preaching used, and pensionary con- 
cubinacy openly continued, which was an allowance 
of concubinacy to the clergy by paying a pension (to 
the bishop, or his court,) notwithstanding the liberty 
of marriage granted." And Parker himself was openly 
charged with having " such a commissioner there as 
openly kept three concubines."^ This, let it be 
noticed, was not a libel by " Martin Marprelate," but 
an official report from ;i royal commission presented 
to the privy council. While Puritans crowded every 
pestiferous jail in the kingdom for merely preaching 
the truth as it is in Jesus, these infamous priests filled 
every parish in England. Let any man assert that 
we have given the only, or the most scandalous in* 
stances we could rake up from the polluted sower of 
the early Anglican church history, and we shall give 
him references to fifty times as manymprej for Ave 
decline polluting our pages with such abandoned pro- 
fligacj . 
One of the most fruitful sources of those enormous 

* Strypc's Parker, i. 1 56. + Strypc'e An. i. 246. 

t Strypc's Furker, i. 404. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. Ixi 

evils under which the Church of England at this time 
groaned, was that prolific mother of all corruption, 
patronage, which has never existed in a Church with- 
out corrupting it, and which threatens, if God inter- 
pose not, to destroy our own beloved Zion. In 1584, 
"a person of eminency in the Church" gives a fearful 
picture of the evils which "the devil and corrupt 
patrons" had occasioned to the Anglican establish- . 
ment. "For patrons now-a-days," he says, "search 
not the universities for most fit pastors, but they post 
up and down the country for a most gainful chap- 
man; he that hath the biggest purse to pay largely, 
not he that hath the best gifts to preach learnedly is 
presented."* And what is the difference between 
this state of matters and what has existed among our- 
selves, but that the patron, instead of selling his pre- 
sentations for money, has bestowed them in return 
for votes for his nominee to parliament, for support in 
gaining the lieutenancy of a county, or (as now seems 
the current price) for support in "'swamping" the 
present majority in our General Assembly? 

The bishops were just as corrupt in the disposal of 
the benefices in their gift as the lay patrons. Curtes 
of Chichester, for example, was charged by several 
gentlemen and justices of peace of his diocese, among 
other malversations of office, with keeping benefices 
in his gift long vacant, that he might himself pocket 
the fruits, and selling his advowsons to the highest 
bidder.! After a visitation of his province, Parker 
writes Lady Bacon, that "to sell and to buy benefices, 
to fleece parsonages and vicarages, was come to that 
pass, that omnia sunt venalia;" that all ranks were 
guilty of the practice, "so far, that some one knight 
had four or five, and others, seven or eight benefices 
clouted together," and retained in their own hands, 
the parishes all the while being vacant; while others 
again set boys and servants "to bear the names of 
such livings," and others again bargained them away 

* Strype's An. ii. 146. Ibid. Whitgift, i. 368. t Ibid. 117. 



Ixii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

at a fixed sum per year. And/*' he adds, "this kind 
of doing was common in all the country."* 

When the Simonists came for orders or institution, 
they sometimes were rejected by the more conscien- 
tious prelates, on account, not indeed of their Simony, 
which, sn far as we have noticed, never happened, 
but on account of their gross ignorance and scandal- 
ous Lives. But the patrons, and these dutiful sons of 
the Church, anticipating by three centuries, the prac- 
tices with which we are, alas, but too familiar in our 
own day. were not thus to be defrauded of their 
"vested rights" and "patrimonial interests." They 
commenced suits in the civil courts, and harassed the 
bishops with the terrors of a quart impedi t, and of a 
praemunire. They did not always, however, put 
themselves to that trouble. Some of the presentees 
at once took possession of their benefices without 
waiting for orders, (as we shall bye and bye show,) 
and set themselves to read prayers, and administer 
quasi sacraments, or what was much more congenial 
to their tastes, to cultivate their glebes; varying the 
monotony of attending "farmers' dinners" by occa- 
sional other indulgences much less "moderate;" an 
example this, which (barring the last part,) we take 
have most humbly to commend to those unpopular 
presentees who are not fortunate enough to get pre- 
sentations to parishes within that paradise of mode- 
ratism. the synod of Aberdeen, or the presbytery of 
Meigle. 

Iu consequence of this state of matters, pluralities 
and non-residence became universal. Nor could it 
well be otherwise when the prelates set such exam- 
ples as that we are about to adduce before men by no 
means disinclined to follow them. We could show 

* Strypc's Parker, i. 495-8. By the 22d apostolical canon, the 2d 
council of Chalcedon, and the 22d Trullan canon, Simonists, if pre- 
lates, or priests, or deacons, were to be deposed and excommunicated. 
Pray, what becomes of the "apostolical succession" in the Church of 
England, if these canons are held valid? And if the canons are re- 
jected, pray, on what other foundation docs the Church of England 
stand ? 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxiii 

several examples of pluralism such as never, we are 
persuaded, was witnessed in any other Church. The 
case of the following Jacobus de Voragine, however, 
may stand for all. From the frequency and the 
urgency of the complaints that came up to the privy 
council regarding the state of the diocese of St. Asaph, 
a commission was appointed in 1587 to visit it. The 
visitors, on their return, laid the following report be- 
fore the high commission court, viz., that "most of the 
great livings within the diocese, some with cure of 
souls and some without cure, are either holden by the 
bishop (Hughes) himself in commendam" or by non- 
residents, the most of whom were laymen, civilians, 
or lawyers in the archbishop's court, through which 
dispensations to hold commendams were obtained. 
The prelate kept to his own share sixteen of the 
richest benefices. Fourteen of the same class were 
held by the civil lawyers, of course as fees for grant- 
ing him dispensations to hold the rest. There was 
not a single preacher within the diocese, the " lord 
bishop only excepted," but three. One of the resident 
pluralists holding three benefices, two of them among 
the richest in the diocese, kept neither "house nor 
hospitality," but lived in an ale house. The prelate 
also sold (some on behoof of his wife, some on that of 
his children, and some on his own) most, if not all, 
the livings in his gift, besides those reserved in his 
own hands. He would grant the tithes of any living 
to any person who would pay for them, reserving for 
the support of an incumbent what would not maintain 
a mechanic; in consequence of which the parishes 
remained vacant. In his visitations he would compel 
the clergy, besides the customary "procurations," as 
they are called, (that is, an assessment upon the clergy 
to pay the ordinary expenses of a prelate during a 
visitation through his diocese,) to pay also for all his 
train.* 

Our readers will not be surprised to hear that this 
wholesale dealer in tithes and benefices was amassing 

* Strype's An. iii. 435, 436, and iv. Ap. No. 32. 



lxiv TIIE ANGLICAN* REFORMATION. 

a handsome fortune and purchasing large estates, be- 
sides dealing in mortgages and other profitable specu- 
lations. Hut they will he surprised to hear that no 
eommendam could he held without a dispensation 
from the archbishop's court, and that while hundreds 
of parishes throughout England were vacant for want 
of ministers to supply them, and while hundreds more 

i } r that they could not support a minister,* 

Parker was accustomed to grant dispensations to pre- 
lates to hold commendams, tor the purpose of being 
able to maintain what In- so much loved and com- 
mended to others, viz.. "the port of a bishop;''! and 
they may also he surprised, that is to say if they are 
well acquainted with the primate as we hap- 
pen to he. when we tell them that Parker was paid a 
tort of per centage upon all these dispensations; not 
that we insinuate that this had any share in inducing 
him to grant them, although his own maintenance of 
the "port of a bishop" entailed upon him no trifling 
expense.! 

Our readers will now be prepared to receive the 

* There arc in England 4513 livings, if living* they can be called, 

under L. 10. Sec an extract from a document from the state paper 

office on the value of all the benefices in England in Collier ix. Rec. 

Nc :•:•. "The Church of England probably stands alone," says 

Bishop Short, "in latter times as exhibiting instances of ecclesiastical 

provided with any temporal support." Sketch, &c. p. 188. 

Mine poverty which lias been entailed on many of our 

tiring*," In- ."ays again, "is one of the greatest evils which afflicts 

our Church prop rty," p. 509. And he says elsewhere, that if it were 

not for the ncunber of persons of independent fortune who take orders 

in the Church of England, allured of course by the higher prizes,) 

many of the nm s musl remain vacant. The manner in which the 

Church o!' England, and our own Church also, were pillaged at the 

Reformation by our benevolent friends the patrons, is an inviting sub- 

tation, bat we must not enter upon it here. 

t For this purpose, he granted to Cheney a dispensation to hold 
Bri.>tol in commeudam with Gloucester. And for precisely the same 
purpose, h B thyn of Landaff a dispensation to hold the 

.,! v "i Bn con, the i< ctory of Roget, a prebend in Landaff, 
r of Sunningwcll, and in addition, "to hold aZia quacunque, 
(juotcu in/in , mtaliacunqut, not exceeding L. 10U per an." Strype's 
Parker, n. 121, 

I As a specimen i f the manni r in which Parker maintained the 
"port of a bishop," the read, r may consult Strype's Parker, i. 378 — 
380, 253, S, 1 ; i.. 278,396, 9 II 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 1XV 

following account of the state of the Church and king- 
dom of England, drawn up by the industrious Strype* 
from the papers of Cecil : — 

"The state of the Church and religion at this time 
(1572) was but low and sadly neglected. . . . The 
churchmen heaped up many benefices upon them- 
selves and resided upon none, neglecting their cures. 
Many of them alienated their lands ; made unreason- 
able leases and wastes of their woods; granted re- 
versions and advowsons to their wives and children, 
or to others for their use. Churches ran greatly into 
dilapidation and decay, and were kept nasty and 
filthy, and indecent for God's worship. . . . Among 
the laity there was little devotion; the Lord's day 
greatly profaned and little observed; the common 
prayers not frequented ; some lived without any ser- 
vice of God at all; many were mere heathens and 
atheists; the queen's own court an harbour for epi- 
cures and atheists, and a kind of lawless place because 
it stood in no parish ; — which things made good 
men fear some bad judgments impending over the 
nation." 

And yet ministers of the Church of England can 
find no terms sufficiently strong in which to praise the 
reformation in their own Church, or dispraise that in 
the other Protestant churches. 

It may not be improper, although we have scru- 
pulously confined ourselves to Church of England 
authorities, to give the testimony of a contemporary 
Puritan as to the condition of that Church about 
1570:— 

" I could rehearse by name," says our author, " a 
bishop's boy, ruffianly both in behaviour and apparel, 
at every word swearing and staring, having ecclesi- 
astical promotions — a worthy prebend (prebendary?) 
no doubt. I could name whoremongers being taken, 
and also confessing their lechery, and yet both enjoy- 
ing their livings and also having their mouths open, 
and not stopped nor forbidden to preach. I know 

* Life of Parker, ii. 204, 205. 



lXVi THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

also some that have said mass diverse years since it 
was prohibited, and upon their examination confessed 
the same, yet ore in quiet possession of their eccle- 
siastical promotions. I know double beneficed men 
that do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play at dice 
tables, bowls, and read service in the Church, — but 
these infect not their flocks with false doctrine, for 
they teacli nothing a1 I 

Where is the man who ponders over these state- 
that will not sympathize with the bishop of 
Sodor and Man. in the reflection with which he closes 
his history of the reign of Elizabeth ? — " The feeling 
which the more attentive study of these times is cal- 
culated to inspire," says Dr.Shortyf "is the conviction 
of the superintendence of Providence over the Church 
of Christ." Assuredly but for the watchful provi- , 
dence of the God of all grace, the Church of Christ 
in England could never have survived the reign of 
Elizabeth. 

There is just one subject more to which we must 
allude before we bring the lengthened sketch of the 
Anglican Reformation to a close; and wc do so in 
order to show our readers that if ''apostolical succes- 

* Parte of a Register, p. 8. See also p'lssim, the first of the Mar 
Prelate Tracts, just reprinted by .Mr. John Petheram, bookseller, 71 
Chancery Lane, London. The .Mar Prelate Tracts having been 
written in ;i satirical style, were disclaimed by the stern and severe 
Puritans of the times, but so far as facts arc concerned, we hold them 
perfect 1\ We have read through Martin's Epistle, just 

published, and will at any time, at five minutes' warning, undertake 
to establish by positive or presumptive evidence the substantial, and 
in the L r rtat majority of cases the verbal, truth of any important fact 
. Petheram intends, should he receive snificient en- 
OOoragement, to reprint by subscription, in a neat cheap form, several 
of the old Puril i as The Troubles at Frankfort, Ad- 

monition to Parliament, Parte of a Register, and others exceedingly 
valuable, but so exceedingly rare, that not one in a hundred of our 
r have Been tin in. Mr. Petheram illustrates these 
judicious antiquarian notes, that add greatly to their value. 
v. mmend our readers in the strongest terms I 

curious and valuable productions, and trust Mr. 
Petheram may r< c< f><- bu< b < neouragement in his spirited enterprise 
as may induce linn to reprint rks of the old Puritan 

divines, 

+ Sketch, &c.p. 318. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lXVU 

sion," or an uninterrupted succession of ministers 
canonically baptized, and prelatically ordained and 
consecrated, be essential to the being of a Church, 
then the Church of England not only cannot prove 
that she has this essential qualification, but we can 
prove that she has lost it, at least to an extent that 
invalidates all her pretensions to its possession. 

We have some time ago shown, that, on canonical 
principles, baptism is valid only when it is adminis- 
tered by a minister canonically, that is, as it is com- 
monly understood, prelatically ordained; and that 
without such baptism a man's orders, however canoni- 
cally conferred, are null and void, inasmuch as he 
wanted a qualification which is essential as a sub- 
stratum for orders subsequently received. Ministers 
of the Church of England, if they would prove that 
they possess an apostolical succession, must first prove 
that all through whom baptism and orders have de- 
scended to them have themselves been canonically 
baptized and ordained. But how can this be proved 
in the presence of such facts as the following ? Mid- 
wives, about the period of the Reformation, were, it 
would appear, frequently guilty of changing infants 
at birth, strangling and beheading them, and bap- 
tizing them in what were called cases of necessity, 
with perfumed and artificial water, and "odd and 
profane words" and ceremonies. On these accounts 
it was deemed necessary not only to bind them over 
to keep the peace towards these "innocents/' but to 
grant them a species of orders, by which they might 
be admitted among the subaltern grades of the hier- 
archy. Parker, for example, in 1567, grants to Elea- 
nor Pead, a license to administer baptism, (having 
first exacted of her an oath of canonical obedience) of 
the following tenor, — "Also, that in the ministration 
of the sacrament of baptism, I will use apt, and the 
accustomed words of the same sacrament, that is to 
say, these words following, or the like in effect, ' I 
christen thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost/ and none other profane words."* 

* Strype's An. i. ii. 242—3. 



Ixviii THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

Now, without being so hypercritical as to maintain 
that, Parker, in calling the words "I christen thee," 
&c. " profane w in the above sentence he 

necessarily does, seems himself to acknowledge the 
invalidity of such pretended sacrament; and without 
maintaining that the omission of the scriptural term 
"I baptize." and the substitution of the unscriptural 
and heretical term k, I christen," invalidates the whole 
act, (even had it been performed by Parker himself) 
but granting that these irregularities derogate nothing 
from the validity of the ordinance, as performed by 
the said Eleanor, we yet beg leave to demand of 
every pretender to the apostolical succession in the 
Anglican Church, to prove to our satisfaction that 
some of his ghostly fathers were not "christened" by 
Eleanor Pead, or some of her "sage" sisterhood; and 
if they were, then to show us any authority whatever 
that such " sage femme" has to administer baptism 
any more than the Lord's Supper; and finally, if he 
contends that Eleanor Pead did, or could possess such 
authority, then we ask on what ground could she be 
inhibited from performing the other acts of the minis- 
try, or why deacons, priests, and prelates are at all 
necessary, seeing an apostolical succession of mid- 
wives is just as sufficient as that of prelates or Popes? 
We trust these remarks may not be considered very 
unreasonable. 

lint we possess ample evidence that mid wives were 
not the only uueauonieal administrators of sacraments 
during the Anglican Reformation. We have already 
shown that the bishops were persecuted, both by 
patrons and presentees, when ordination and institu- 
tion were refused to unqualified candidates.' But 
we have now to show that many of those whose only 
objects 111 getting a "living," was what the term so 
expr inlies. on meeting with patrons, whose 

only desire was to make the most of their "patri- 
monial rights, and vested interests," not, indeed, in 
the patriotic form ol "swamping" a noble-minded 
majority, who will neither he bullied nor bribed into 

* Sue for example Strypc's Parker, ii. bi — 87. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxix 

a sacrifice of the rights and liberties of Christ and his 
people, (that plan was reserved for Scottish patrons 
in the nineteenth century) but in the more substantial, 
though not more offensive shape, of getting a good price 
for the presentation, or a long lease, or fee-simple pos- 
session of the best part of the benefice, had recourse to 
a plan which we again beg leave to recommend to 
those of our unpopular " moderate" preachers who 
may happen to have got into the good graces of our 
Dukes of Richmond, our Earls of Kinnoul, and our 
Sir James Grahams; that is, in plain terms, these 
Anglican intrusionist presentees, without troubling 
prelate or primate for orders, at once, in simple virtue 
of their civil presentations, not only took possession of 
the temporalities, but set themselves to perform all 
clerical acts, as ministers of the parishes. Are we 
wrong in thinking, as we really do, it were more 
manly and rational for those who maintain that a pre- 
sentation, in ordinary circumstances, necessarily leads 
to ordination, at once to take possession of their bene- 
fices, in virtue of a warrant from the Court of Session, 
rather than trouble themselves and others for ordina- 
tions (so termed) from men who have no power to 
confer orders but in virtue of warrants from the civil 
courts? If, when the Church hath withdrawn the 
orders she conferred, the Court of Session can confer 
orders of its own (for that is the true state of the case,) 
why not remain satisfied with a civil title to a civil 
right, or with orders from the civil court rather than 
an unmeaning ceremonial at the hands of its nomi- 
nees? But leaving these suggestions to be pondered 
on by those whom they may concern, we return to 
the history of " unordained ministers" in the Church 
of England. 

Let us just present a sample of the numerous cases 
we could refer to by simply searching through the 
notus extracted by our own hand from the works of 
the "industrious Strype." In 1567, in a visitation 
of the cathedral of Norwich, it was discovered that 
one of the archdeacons (a part of whose functions it 
is to institute, or as we call it, to induct, into benefices) 



1XX THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

and a prebendary were not in orders at ah\* In 1568, 
the bishop of Gloucester wrote Parker that he had dis- 
covered in his diocese two men who had "adminis- 
tered the communion, christened infants, and married 
people, and done other spiritual offices in the Church, 
and yet never took holy orders. One of them had 
counterfeited that bishop's seal, and the other was 
perjured. "t In 1574, there was '-one Lowth, of 
Carlisle side, who, though he had for fifteen or six- 
tern y .1 the function, yet he proved to be 
ordered neither priesl nor minister."! He was dis- 

I m conseq ome irregularity in his 

conformity, which led to his examination, and incon- 
sequence of which he was discovered to be a mere 
layman. Had he conformed, like so many more who 
were in similar circumstances, he might perhaps, lay- 
man though lie was, have risen to the bench. In 
1832, the bishop of St. David's wrote to Walsingham 
that he found in his diocese "divers that pretended 
to be ministers, and had counterfeited divers bishops' 
seals, as Gloucester, Hereford, LandafT and his pre- 
decessors, being not called at all to the ministry." 
There must have been at least lour of them, and they 
had been in their cures - by the space of eight, ten, 
twelve, and some fourteen years."§ "But among 

ndalous churchmen in these days (1571,) the 
neatest surely." says Strype,|| who. however, knew 
far too much to be very confident in his assertion, — 

u the greatest surely was one Blackall He had 

four wives alive He had intruded himself into 

the ministry for the space of twelve years, and yet 
w;is never lawfully called, nor made minister by any 
bishop. ... lie was a chopper and changer of bene- 
fices," (that is, lie was successful in getting a variety 
of presentations to benefices in various pans of the 
country, into which lie intruded himself, without ask- 
ing the leave or concurs nee of any prelate — a very 
frequent occurrence at the time,) "little caring by 

• Btrrpe*i Parker, i. t Ibid. i. 534. 

t [bid.il 400. I. iv of Grind*], 875—6. 

§ Strype's Lift oHirindal, 401. || Annals, iii. 144—5. 



THE .ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxxi 

what ways or means so (as) he might get money from 
any man. He would run from country to country, 
and from towji to town, leading about with him 
naughty women, as in Gloucestershire he led a 
naughty strumpet about the country, (nick) named 
Green Apron. He altered his name wherever he 
went, going by these several surnames, Blackall, 
Barthall, Dorel, Barkly, Baker!!" 

Was there ever a church upon the earth in which 
such a monster as this could exist, in which such atro- 
cious irregularities,, and not only irregularities, but 
criminalities, could be openly perpetrated for the space 
of twelve years, without censure or detection, but the 
Church of England alone ? And are we now, in 
blind unenquiring submission to " bulls" from Oxford, 
or London or Lambeth, in spite of such infamous 
facts open to the whole world, — are we, renouncing 
the characteristic attributes of man, and resigning the 
direction of our judgments, and the interests of our 
souls into the hands of the successors, not of the apos- 
tles, but of such miscreants as Blackall, to receive, as 
the only commissioned messengers of Heaven to our 
land, the ministers of the Church of England ? So 
common in fact was the practice of taking possession 
of benefices without orders, and when the right of pos- 
session was at any time questioned, to forge letters of 
orders, that in 1575, that is, seventeen years after the 
Anglican Church was settled under Elizabeth, the mat- 
ter was brought before convocation, and it was en- 
acted, that " diligent inquisition should be made for 
such as forged letters of orders," and " that bishops 
certify one another of counterfeit ministers."* The 
reason of this last enactment was, that when one of 
these "counterfeit ministers" was detected in one dio- 
cese, he fled into another, and so little unity of action 
was there, or can there ever be, in a prelatic regimen, 
(unlike our Church courts) that the same course of 
"counterfeit ministry" might be gone through in suc- 
cession in all the dioceses in England. 

* Strype's Grindal, 290. One of these was e.g. summoned before 
the convocation of 1584. Strype's Whitgift, i. 398. 



IXXii THE ANULICAX REFORMATION. 

What now, we repeat, becomes of the claim to the 
apostolical succession, so confidently and offensively 
put forth by ministers of the Church of En£ 
''Even in the memory of persons living," says arch- 
bishop Whatrly.' "there existed a bishop, concerning 
whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty 
prevailing, as to when, and where, and by whom he 
pad been ordained, thai doubts existed in the minds 
of many persons whether he had ever been ordained 
at all," . . and from the circumstances of the case, and 
from the fact that such doubts did prevail in the minds 
of well-informed persons, it is certain "that the cir- 
cumstances of the case were such as to make manifest 
the possibility of such an irregularity occurring under 
such circumstances." Such an irregularity, then, as 
a man not only officiating in the lower grades of the 
ministry, but even rising to the primacy of the Church 
of England, without ever having been in orders, or 
rather such a subversion of the very first elements of 
an apostolical constitution, was not confined to the 
dark and troublous period of the Reformation, when 
the whole framework of society was dissolved into 
its first rudiments, and every species of irregularity 
not only might, but as we know did occur, but the 
very same « unchurching" irregularities have existed 
in the Church of England down through every age 
of its history, "till within the memory of persons now 
living." Any one who will look at a "genealogical 
nd obset ve how many wide spreading and far 
distant branches may spring from one stem, will easily 
perceive how a v< ry few such unordained or ••coun- 
terfeit ministers" as we have referred to, and shown 
to have existed in the Church of England, were amply 
enough to have destroyed all apostolical sua 
in tin- kingdom. Such withered branches could not 
transmit any portion of the "sacred deposit." All 
who have succeeded to them are no successors of the 
apostles; and we challenge any, and every minister 
in the Church of England to prove to us that he has 
not received all the orders he ever possessed, through 
some of these Eleanor Peads, Lowths of Carlisle side, 

* On the Kingdom of Christ, p. 178. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxxiii 

or Blackalls — a glorious parentage, certainly, of which 
they have great reason to be vain. 

We have not, for our own part, been very much ad- 
dicted to boast of our ancestry, albeit it contains names 
of whose call and commission from Heaven we have 
no more doubt than we have of those of the apostle 
Paul. We have commonly found, in private life, 
that such boasting is very much a characteristic of 
upstart parvenus, and we have yet to learn that it is 
greatly different in regard to official descent. Should 
occasion, however, demand, we have no great dislike 
to pay a visit to the Herald's College, and demon- 
strate to our Southern neighbours that we have no 
such bar sinister in ours as defaces their clerical es- 
cutcheon. May we therefore drop a hint to certain 
parties, that, however they may do it in private, where 
no one may mark their confusion, they should be 
specially chary how, in public, they turn up any ec- 
clesiastical " Debrett." Much as they decry, and 
often as they twit our Wesleyan friends, he must have 
a peculiarly constituted taste, indeed, who would not 
prefer even genuine " Brumagem orders" to such as 
have been forged by such ghostly progenitors as they 
boast of. 

We had purposed to show multifarious and other 
irregularities in the organization of the Church of 
England. We have, however, more than exhausted 
our present space. But should God grant us health 
we may soon return to the subject, for we can assure 
our readers we have only broken ground, and simply 
tested the range and capabilities of our ordnance. It 
is assuredly in itself no grateful task to rake up the 
errors of the dead, and expose the defects in our 
neighbours' ecclesiastical constitution. But it has 
become necessary. We have now no option. The 
Church of England has now, for years, unprovoked, 
unresisted, poured upon us such torrents of abuse, 
from her lordliest prelates to her obscurest curates, — 
she has vilified all we held sacred, insulted all we 
held dear, and we must either tamely submit to see 
our beloved Church covered with infamy, or hurl 
back the foul missiles upon the aggressors. 



IXXIV THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. 

An observation or two in conclusion. We have, 
upon this occasion, confined our remarks to the history 
of Elizabeth's first prelates. The second set became 
much less pious and Protestant, and consequently we 

iected the period most favourable to the Church 
of England. This is clearly implied in a passage we 

vcn from the British Critic, and we may here- 
after prove n. should any call it in question. Our 
authorities have been exclusively from Church of 
England writers; not certainly because we deemed 
them more trustworthy than others, for no man of 
any pretensions to candour will dispute, as Bishop 
Short lias remarked/ that members of other com- 
munions cannot be supposed to be more prejudiced 
against her than her own members are in her favour. 
We have selected this course, because we have found 
her own writers establish all that we desire in order 
to accomplish our end. When they write against the 
Church of Scotland, will they follow our example? 
If they do. it will present a new phasis in the contro- 
versy. Hitherto they have taken as their authorities 
works written by non-jurors, and Scottish prelatic 
sectaries, the most unscrupulous controversialists that 
ever disgraced a cause that had. little indeed to com- 
mend it. We have said that the Church of England, 

ry thing of importance, stands now precisely 
where she stood at the demise of Elizabeth. This 
may he called in question by those who know not the 
facts of the case. We therefore appeal to the follow- 
ing testimony of one of her living prelates. "The 
kingdom," says Bishop Short, t " has, for the last two 
hundred years, been making rapid strides in every 

of improvement, and a corresponding' altera* 

119, 

i ofthe History ofthe < Church of England, 2d edit. pp. 436-7. 
I ins is n work which we recommend to our renders. That 
with Dr. Short in many of his statements we have 
not com ealed. But we should do him injustice it' we did not Bay, that 
although his work ia brief, too brief, and not free from faults, from 
which we n. \. : ■ history ofthe Church of England, by 

one of her own ministers, altogether exempt, s«till it is incomparably 
the beat work on the. suhjeet which an Anglican clergyman has ever 
produced. 



THE ANGLICAN REFORMATION. lxXV 

tion in the laws on every subject has taken place; 
during this period nothing has been remedied in 
the church" (the italics are ours.) So grievous are 
the abuses which the anomalous constitution of the 
Anglican church has entailed upon her, that Dr. 
Short hesitates not to say, (with his usually inter- 
jected " perhaps," whenever he gives utterance to an 
unpalatable sentiment) that "the temporal advan- 
tages which the establishment possesses, are, perhaps, 
more than . counterbalanced by the total inability of 
the church to regulate any thmg_ within herself, and 
the great want of discipline over the clergy ; . . . . 
while the absurd nature of our ecclesiastical laws ren- 
ders every species of discipline over the laity not only 
nugatory, but when it is exercised, frequently unchris- 
tian, ridiculous, and in many cases very oppressive," 
as in the case of excommunication, by which a man 
is deprived, not only of all ecclesiastical privileges, 
but even of civil, yea, of all social rights. 

Some of our readers may be inclined to ask, if ail 
these things be in reality so, how does it happen that 
good, pious, enlightened men remain in the commun- 
ion of the Church of England? Now this is a question 
that ought not to be asked, and being asked, ought 
not to be answered. We judge no man. To his own 
master he standeth or falleth. We can, however, 
assign one reason, which, besides the all-powerful 
one of the prejudices of education, is sufficient to 
account to our own mind, and that without any im- 
putation against them, for such men remaining in the 
Anglican church, and that is, total ignorance of her 
character and constitution. Let not this insinuation 
startle our readers. We shall prove that such ignor- 
ance exists. Dr. Short, in the preface to his work, 
(p. 1) assigns as the reason that ]ed him to commence 
his history, that he " discovered after he was admitted 
into orders," and when engaged as tutor in his college, 
" that the knowledge of English ecclesiastical history 

which he possessed was very deficient He 

was distressed that his knowledge of the sects among 
the philosophers of Athens was greater than his infor- 
mation on questions which affect the Church of Eng- 



I.XXVi TIIE ATCUCAH REFORMATION. 

land." Dr. Short's is no singular case. The ignorance 
of Anglican ministers upon the history and constitu- 
tion of their own church would astonish our readers. 
A memorable instance of this has recently come to light 
in this city, and we allude to it because the well-known 
conscientiousness and high character of the party con- 
cerned give the instance all the greater authority. 
The Rev. I). 'I'. K. Drummond, for whom personally 
ertain the wry highest respect, has shown, in 
one ni Ins recent tracts, thai he never, till within the 
w days, had examined, or at least understood, 
D0D8 of that sect of which he was a minister; 
or at all events, that lie was ignorant of what it re- 
gards ashy far the most important part of its services, 
— the communion office. Mr. Drummond was, for 
years, a minister in that body, and it does not ap- 
pear that a shadow of suspicion ever crossed his 
mind that its constitution contained anything either 
positively erroneous, or sinfully defective; indeed his 
character is a sufficient guarantee that no such thought 
ever found harbourage in his breast, for had he but 
entertained the suspicion, he would not have remained 
one day in that communion. And yet in the consti- 
tution and liturgical oliices of that sect there existed 
all the while a plague-spot so deadly, that, on its dis- 
covery. Mr. Drummond is compelled, as he values his 
own soul, to come out of Babylon, that he he not a 
partaker of her sins and punishment. Such will also 
he the result to which pious ministers in the Church 
of England will he brought, should they ever unpre- 
judicedly and dispassionately examine her constitu- 
tion. And -honld Mr. Drummond, as we doubt not 
he will, continue his investigations in the spirit in 
which he has commenced them, we shall he aston- 
ished, indeed, if his love of truth, and of Him who is 
the truth, does ,| ( ,t | r ;,,i ],,,,, | () renounce all commu- 
nion with the Church of England, as he has already 
done with the Scottish prelatic sectaries. A sifting 
lime is at hand; and when the breath of the living 
God has blown over the thrashing floor of the Church, 
we confidently anticipate that only the chaff shall 
remain in the Church of England. 



THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPALIANS 



TO THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 



INDEFENSIBLE: 



WITH AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIVINE RIGHT OF 



EPISCOPACY AND THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: 



m A SERIES OF LETTERS TO THE REV. DR PUSEY. 



By JOHN BROWN, D.D. 



11 Nothing- has so effectually thrown contempt upon a regular sue 
cession of the ministry, as the calling no succession regular but what 
was uninterrupted, and the making the eternal salvation of Chris- 
tians to depend upon that uninterrupted succession, of which the most 
learned can have the least assurance, and the unlearned can have no 
notion, but through ignorance and credulity." Hoadlv. 

"They who would reduce the Church to the form of government 
thereof in the primitive times would be found pecking towards the 
Presbytery of Scotland: Which, for my part, I believe in point of 

fovernment cometh Dearer than cither yours the Popish) or ours of 
episcopacy to the first age of Christ's Church." Lord Digby. 



CONTENTS. 



LETTER I. 



Ungenerous and unprovoked attack by Puseyite Episcopalians on 
Presbyterian Churches. — Alarming view presented by the former, 
of the spiritual condition of the latter. — Necessity imposed on 
Presbyterians to defend their principles., ... 17 



LETTER II. 

Exclusive claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to the Christian ministry 
by no means of recent origin. — Saravia not the author of them, but 
Laud. — Account of the principal individuals in the Church of Eng- 
land who have brought them forward at different periods, when they 
considered her to be in danger. — Their doctrines proved to be con- 
trary to her principles, from the Thirty-nine Articles, the writings 
of the Bishops who composed her Formularies, and their immediate 
successors, their conduct towards Presbyterian Churches, the Char- 
ter granted by Edward the Sixth to these Churches in London, 
and the establishment of Presbytery by Elizabeth in Jersey and 
Guernsey, 21 



LETTER III. 

These doctrines condemned in the strongest terms by the most dis- 
tinguished Protestant Statesmen after the Reformation; Cecil, the 
Lord President of Queen Elizabeth's Council, Sir Francis Knollys, 
and Lord Bacon, and denounced as " a Popish conceit," by the 
leading bishops and clergy. — Dissimilarity between the Church of 
England, beyond whose pale, and that of the Church of Rome t 
Puseyites deny that there is any hope of salvation, and the Apos- 
tolic Church, in the extent of its bishoprics, the civil power exercised 
by its prelates, the multitude of its ceremonies, and "its want," ac- 
cording to its own acknowledgment, "of a godly discipline,". . .38 



CONTENTS-. 



LETTER IV. 

Extracts from ; Minn - the doctrines of Puseyite 

> opinion 

: by the whol< bo were zealous 

for the spiritual impro for five hundred years 

n, by the who! I >nt Churches at 

that iiit morablc p< riod, and I ministers, 

who subscribed the Artich s of Smalkald, which declare that bishops 

arc ii"i superior to pr< Bbyters by divine right — Improbability that 

idividuala and I ( hurches 

ins righl 61 

LETTER V. 

Presumptive evidence that diocesan bishops have not been appointed 
by God, ily bishops mentioned in Scripture among 
riding ministers of the Church are presbyters, and no passage 
can be produced specifying the qualifications required in bishops 
as distinct from presbyters. — This inexplicable, if there was to be 
an order of ministers, denominated bishops, superior to presbyters. 
— Presbyter, a nameof higher honour than bishop. No minister of 
an inferior order distinguished by the name of a minister of a 
superior order. — Deacons never called presbyters, bul pi 
always represented as bishops — The powers of ordination and 
government ascribed in Scripture to presbyters. — Wickliffe held the 
principles of Presbytery, and maintained that Scripture gave no 
countenance to diocesan Episcopacy, 71 

LETTER VI. 

Additional evidence that the principal Reformers of the Church of 
England rejected tin- divine right of Episcopacy, and pi' 

rtical polity, chiefly on the ground that they 
•'• r adapted to absolute monarchy. — Testi- 
monies against tin- dh inc right of Episcopacy, and acknowledging 
that Presbyterianism is sanctioned by Scripture, from the writings 
ofTimlal. Barnes, Lambert, Cranmcr, Tonstall, S 

n, Robertson, George Cranmcr, Willet, Bedel, and Lord 


LETTER VII. 

I cunent for diocesan Episcopacy, from the different orders 

in the ministry und« r the Jewish 
proved to be more favourable to Popery tli 

t .iblishes the latter, it liirm lent merely for a 



CONTENTS. 



single bishop in a nation, with far more limited powers than those 
of any modern bishop. — No resemblance between the powers and 
functions of the Jewish priests and Levites, and those of priests and 
deacons in Episcopalian Churches. — Argument acknowledged to be 
inconclusive by some of the leading defenders of Episcopacy, . . .93 



LETTER VIII. 

The argument of Dr. Brett and Bishop Gleig for diocesan Episcopacy 
from the different orders in the ministry, during our Lord's minis- 
try, inconclusive. — The Old Testament Church had not then ceased 
to exist, nor was the New Testament Church established. — Their 
account of the ministry which was instituted at that time not sup- 
ported by Scripture, contrary to the representations of it given by 
the Fathers, and so far as it furnishes a pattern of the Gospel minis- 
try, would warrant the appointment of a single bishop over the 
Universal Church. — Archbishop Potter's hypothesis equally unsatis- 
factory, and would lead to a similar conclusion, 102 



LETTER IX. 

The same argument, as stated by Bishop Bilson, Mr. Jones, and 
Bishop Skinner, invalid. — Upon their hypothesis there would be no 
deacons in the Church. — No higher powers were possessed at that 
time by the Apostles than by the Seventy ; and the different cir- 
cumstances mentioned by Archbishop Potter, to prove the supe- 
riority of the former, do not establish it. — The office of the Seventy- 
seems to have terminated with their mission, or, at furthest, at the 
death of the Saviour, and consequently they could not be an order 
in the Christian Church, Ill 



LETTER X. 

The argument of Archdeacon Daubeny and Bishop Gleig, for the 
order of bishops, from the extraordinary office assigned to the Apos^ 
ties in the New Testament Church, proved to be fallacious. — It no 
more follows from what is said in Matthew xxviii. 20, that there 
are to be Apostles till the end of the world, than from what is said 
in Ephesians iv. 11-13, that there are to be New Testament Pro- 
phets and Evangelists till that time. — That office proved to have 
ceased as to its peculiar powers with those who were first invested 
with it, because no one since their death has possessed the quali- 
fications which it required, nor has been called to it in the way in 
which they were appointed, nor has been instructed by inspiration 
like them in the truths which he was to deliver, nor could perform 
miracles. — Sutclive, Willet, Barrow, and others, deny that bishops 

succeed Apostles in their peculiar powers, 121 

1 



10 CONTENTS. 



LETTER XL 

\- presbyteri ran perform the work of "discipling the nations" by 
preaching and baptizing till the end of the world, and are the 
higl landing ministers mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment, they are entitled to I" considered as the successors of the 
-tl.s.— This :k knowledged by Willet — The report that the 
Apostles divided tbe # world into different parts, and that each of 
them laboured in one of them as its bishop, proved to he fabulous, 
though repeated by Bishop Gleig. — It cannot be inferred from the 
application of the name Apostles by the Fathers to some of the 
bishops that the latter succeed the Apostles, for they give it also 
to presbyters, and even females. — Refutation of the argument for 
Episcopacy from the appointment of James to the Bishopric of 
Jerusalem.— -Quotations from Bpurious writings of the Fathers, in 
support of this fiction, by Bishop Gleig and the present Curate of 
Derry exposed, --^ 13? 



LETTER XII. 

Bishop Bilson represents the argument for Episcopacy, from the 
powers conferred on Timothy and Titus, as "the main erection of 
the Episcopal cause;" and Bishop Hall declares, that if it fails, "he 
will yield the cause, and confess that he has Lost Ids senses." — 
None of the Fathers during thejirat three centuries represent them 
as diocesan bishops; and Willet, Stillingfleet, and Bishop Bridges 
acknowledge them to have been extraordinary ministers, or Evan- 
gelists. — .Nature of the office of Evangelists, as illustrated bv Scrip- 
ture and the writings of the Fathers.— Different from that of dio- 
mi bishops, and superior to it. — Diocesan bishops never said to 
have been associated with Evangelists or Apostles in any act of 

jurisdiction <>r government, though Presbyters repeatedly took part 
with them in such acts. — No notice of diocesan bishops as an order 
r rifting in their days. — The argument in every point of view in* 
< onclusive, 156 



LETTER XIII. 

Examination of the argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the 
tagels of the seven Asiatic Churches. — Refutation of it as stated 
by Miher, who would restrict the superintendence exercised by 
bishops to ten or twelve congregations, a plan which would create 
in England a thousand diocesan bishops.— Refutation of it as stated 
by Bishop Gleig, who represents these Angels as single individuals 

and prelates. — Them ■ Angel borrowed from one of the ministers 

of the Jewish synagogue, who had no authority over other syna- 



CONTENTS. 11 

gogues, and was not the sole or chief ruler of his own synagogue. — 
Remarkable blunder of Bishop Russel respecting the Angel of the 
synagogue and its other officers, for which he is praised by the Rev. 
Mr. Sinclair. — If the Angels of the Churches were single persons, 
no evidence that they were diocesan bishops. — Three arguments to 
prove that they were not single individuals, but representatives of 
the whole ministers of the different Churches, as each of the stars 
mentioned in Rev. i. represented the whole of the ministers of each 
of the Churches, who shed their united light on the members. — 
Striking remarks of Lord Bacon on the unprecedented powers 
vested in bishops, and on their being allowed to exercise some of 
them, without any appeal, by lay-chancellors,. 178 



LETTER XIV. 

Apostolical succession. — If the Apostles were neither diocesan bishops 
themselves, nor ordained such bishops, the apostolical succession, 
as explained and claimed by Puseyite Episcopalians, never began. — 
Waving that objection, as far as there was a succession, it was pre- 
served to Presbyterian Churches before the Reformation, as unin- 
terrupted as to Episcopalian Churches ; and since that time it has 
been preserved as regularly in the former, by Presbyterian ordina- 
tions, as in the latter by Episcopal. — Unfounded allegation by 
Spottiswood and others, that the adoption of Presbytery at Geneva 
originated in a wish to assimilate the government of the Church to 
that of the State, and that this led to the adoption of that form of 
ecclesiastical polity in other countries. — The contrary proved from 
the reasoning of Farel with Furbiti, who preceded Calvin, and is 
considered by many as the modern father or reviver of Presbytery. — 
Eusebius acknowledges that he could not trace the succession in 
many of the early Churches. — Jewel and Stillingfleet confess that 
it cannot be traced in the Church of Rome, from which many 
of the ministers of the Church of England have derived their 
orders, 199 



LETTER XV. 

The succession destroyed in all those instances in which individuals 
who had only Presbyterian baptism, and were not rebaptized, 
joined Episcopalian Churches, and were made presbyters and 
bishops. — Confirmation cannot remedy this defect, because, as 
Cranmer admits, "it was not instituted by Christ," nor was the 
Redeemer himself, or any individual mentioned in the New Testa- 
m i at, confirmed, and because, as some of the leading English Re- 
formers acknowledged, "it is a dommc ceremony," and il has no 
promise of uracc connected with if." — Butler, who had only Presby- 
terian baptism, and was not rebaptized, made a bishop, baptized 
many, who were afterwards ministers, and made a number oi' 
3, — Seeker, who had only the same baptism, made Primate 



12 CONTENTS. 

of England, ordained many presbyters, and a number of bishops, 
and baptized two kinirs, who for a long time were heads of the 
Church. — Tillotson, though the son of a Baptist, and though there 
is no evidence that he was ever baptized, or ordained a deacon, 
made Archbishop of Canti rbury. — Succession destroyed for more 
than two hundred yean in the important Church of Alexandria, 
and in the early Church of Scotland, in consequence of the ordina- 
tions by the Culd* < presbyters. — Account of the presbyters of Iona, 
theu evangelical due trine, their Presbyterian government, and the 
acknowledgment of thi ii ecclesiastical authority by the Clergy of 
Scotland, 216 



LETTER XVI, 

The succession destroyed in the early Church of England, in conse- 
quence of the ordination of its first bishops by Scottish presbyters. — 
Scottish missionaries who were ordained by presbyters, acknowledg- 
ed l.y Other to have Christianized the greater part of England. — 
The Presby te rian Culdean Scottish Church asserted in the twelfth 
century, before an assembly of English bishops and nobles, to be the 
Mother Church of the Church of England, and not contradicted. — 
An Archbishop of Canterbury in that century never consecrated, 
and a Bishop of Norwich consecrated by a presbyter who was an 
archdeacon. — Succession destroyed in the Church of Ireland 
through the ordination of many of its clergy by the Scottish 
Culdec presbyters. — Eight individuals who never had any orders, 
Archbishops of Armagh, and Primates of all Ireland. — Succession 
destroyed among the Scottish Episcopalians, who, according to Dr. 
Pusey, are not a Christian Church. — Their first prelates in 1610 
never baptized, and their orders irregular. — The orders of their 
next bishops in 1G61 uncanonical, and those of the usage bishops, 
from whom their present bishops derive their orders, pronounced 
by the college bishops in 1727 to be null and void, 246 



LETTER XVII. 

Fhe < hurch of Denmark, as its first superintendents were only pres- 

byli -rs, and alter the Reformation received imposition of hands only 

from Bugenhagen, a single Lutheran presbyter, without the rao- 

'. and upon the principles of l>r. Pusey, nol a Christian 

Church. — The same, ton, the condition ot* the Church of Sweden, 

and of all the foreign Protestant Churches which have only super- 
intendents. — Superintendents both among Lutherans and Calvin- 

ists, when appointed to their office not ordained anew, but. appointed 

merely the chairmen <>r moderators of presbyters, by whom they 

may be deposed. — Their ( 'I m relies, of course, not Christian Church- 

\ COUnl of the ancient Scottish superintendents, whose office 

is misrepresented by Episcopalians. — The Church of Prussia not a 

church, nor the Protestant Churches of Prance, Geneva, Switzer- 
land, Holland. America and Scotland. — The Presbyterians in Ire. 



CONTENTS, 13 

land and Great Britain, with the Methodists and Independents, not 
Churches, and their members without any covenanted title to salva- 
tion. — The succession destroyed in the Church of Rome. — Pagans 
baptized some who became ministers — laymen ordained to be 
bishops — bishops often ordained to Sees which were not vacant. — ■ 
This the case with Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 272 



LETTER XVIII. 

Additional evidence that the succession has been lost in the Church 
of Rome. — Boys ordained to be Bishops, and striplings made 
Popes. — Atheists and avowed infidels raised to the Popedom. — 
Papal canon, that "if a Pope should carry with him innumerable 
souls to hell, no man must presume to find fault with him." — 
Simoniacal ordinations declared void by the canons of many Coun- 
cils, and yet for eight hundred years there were many such ordina- 
tions, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, — Idiots, and per- 
sons, "who, when they read, prayed, or sang, knew not whether 
they blessed God or blasphemed him," ordained to be bishops. — 
Multitudes of the most immoral individuals, some of whom " drank 
wine in honour of the devil," made Popes and Bishops, 286 



LETTER XIX. 

The Bible the only standard by which we are to regulate our opinions 
respecting faith and practice, the orders in the ministry, and the 
rites and ordinances of the Christian Church. — This the doctrine 
of the Bible itself, and of the early Fathers, each of whom rejected 
the opinions of the other Fathers on every subject when not sup- 
ported by Scripture, or contrary to its statements. — This the doc- 
trine, too, of Luther, and of the most eminent Reformers of the 
Church of England. — The Fathers not safe guides respecting the 
meaning of Scripture on other subjects besides Church govern- 
ment. — Numerous instances of the gross misinterpretation of the 
plainest passages in the writings of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, 
Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and 
Jerome. — Numerous instances also of their departing from the 
doctrine of the Apostles on some of the leading points of evangeli- 
cal belief, and of their introducing into the Church superstitious 
rites and idolatrous observances. — This acknowledged by Whitgift 
and Cox. — Presumptive proof which it presents that they might 
depart as far from the original form of ecclesiastical government 
which was appointed for the Church, .305 



LETTER XX. 

Extraordinary opinion of the Oxford Tractarians, that the Scriptures, 
though a rule of faith, are not a rule of discipline and practice, and 
that the latter is to be found in the traditions of the Fathers, along 
with the Scriptures. — This an impeachment of the perfection of 



14 CONTENTS. 

the Scriptures in opposition to their own explicit statements, and a 
mean of virtually adding t<> the Institutions which they prescribe to 
the Church, in opposition to th< ir express and solemn warnings. — 
Tin traditions of the Fathers not a safe guide, because those who 
deliver them wire weak, inexperienced, and fallible men, though 
they lived Deal to the Apostles; and if the Scriptures, which were 
written by men who wen- inspired, are not sufficient to direct us, 
v.r can have do assurance thai when we are following these tradi- 
tions we are not embracing error. — As much danger of our doing 
this, and of "ur making void the institutions of Christ, by our not 
trusting in the Scriptures exclusively, but adopting what is recom- 
mended by tin- traditions of the Fathers, as there was to the Jews 
of makinir void the law of God by following the traditions of the 
elders, because they lived mar to the prophets, instead of trusting 
exclusively in the writings of the prophets. — Busebius and So- 
eratM condemn some of the traditions of the Fathers, and others 
of them such as even Tuseyites would reject, 32-1 



LETTER XXI. 

If the reasoning employed in the two preceding letters be well founded, 
it will not follow that diocesan Episcopacy received the approbation 
of the Apostles, though it could be proved that it existed in the age 
next to the apostolic, unless it could be demonstrated that they had 
expressed their approbation of it in their writings ; but it cannot be 
proved that it existed in that early age. — The mere catalogues of 
bishops, to which Episcopalians appeal, will not establish this, un- 
1« >s they can show that these bishops had the same powers which 
belong exclusively to their prelates. — This, however, they have 
never yet done; and Jerome declares, that even toward the end 
of the fourth century the power of ordination alone distinguished a 
bishop from a presbyter. — In his Commentary on Titus, and his 
Epistle to Evagrius, he represents bishops and presbyters as the 

same, not only in name, hut in authority, and diocesan Kpiseopacy 

i mere human institution, introduced by the Church to prevent 

schism. — He d< scribes it farther as adopted by degree*, aa divisions 

tuns, in ditfrrriit C/iiirclits </, nut inns, by a decree of each of the 
Churches, and not of any genera] council; and as having com- 
menced, UOl at the time of the schism in the Church of Corinth, 

referred to by Paul In his first Epistle to thai Church, but after the 
writing of tlw third Epistle of John, and the death of the Apostles. 
— This represented ;is the opinion of Jerome, as stated in his writ- 
ings, by Luther, M< lancthon, < !al\ in, and the most eminent foreign 
Reformers, by the Wirtemburg Confession and the Articles of 

Bmalkald, and by .lewel, Willet, Whitaker, and many other learned 

and distinguished divines of the ( !hurch oi' England, 339 

LETTER XXII. 

While the constitution of the Church, as settled by the Apo>tlcs, is 

acknowledged by Jerome io have been Presbyterian, he seems to 



CONTENTS. 15 

have approved of a modified Episcopacy as a human arrangement 
for the prevention of schism. — This remedy acknowledged by Gra- 
tius to have increased, in place of repressing the evil. — Invalidity 
of the objection to Presbyterian principles, that they were held by 
Arius, who denied the divinity of Christ, inasmuch, as though he 
might err on the latter point, it would not follow that he erred on 
every other ; for he agreed in many things with Episcopalians, 
and especially with those of them who condemn prayers for the 
dead. — Hilary, Augustine and Chrysostom admit the identity of 
presbyters and bishops. — Clemens Romanus mentions only two 
orders of ministers, and never refers to diocesan bishops. — No re- 
ference to them in the Epistle of Polycarp. — The short Epistles of 
Ignatius proved to be corrupted, so that no dependence can be 
placed on their statements respecting the orders in the ministry ; 
and even admitting them to be genuine, no such powers are 
ascribed in them to bishops as are possessed by modern diocesan 
bishops, 363 



LETTER XXIII. 

No allusion to the powers of diocesan bishops in the writings of Her- 
nias. — Nor any notice of such ministers, or of the sign of the cross 
in baptism, or of confirmation, by Justin Martyr. — No reference to 
them by Irenaeus, who speaks of the ministers who maintained a 
succession of sound doctrine from the time of the Apostles in the 
different Churches, alternately as presbyters and bishops. — 'The 
Churches of Gaul describe him as a presbyter, nine years after he 
was Bishop of Lyons, in the Epistle which they sent with him to the 
Bishop of Rome, considering it as the most honourable name which 
they could give him. — Irenaeus represents Polycarp as a presby- 
ter. — No such powers as those of diocesan bishops ascribed to 
bishops in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, or Tertullian, or 
Origen. — Examination of the writings of Cyprian, whose language 
respecting the dignity of bishops is frequently extravagant. — Proofs 
of his erring grievously on other subjects, so that it would not be 
wonderful if he had erred also on this. — Evidence, however, even 
from his Epistles and other writings of the early Christians, that 
presbyters, both in his day, and for some time afterwards, could not 
only ordain, but sit in councils and even preside in them. — Pas- 
sages in Cyprian's writings, which furnish more plausible argu- 
ments, not only for bishops, but for a Pope, than any which are to 
be found in the preceding Fathers, 389 



LETTER XXIV. 

Reply to the argument for Episcopacy, that there was always impa- 
rity among the orders in the ministry under the preceding dispen- 
sations, and there ought still to be imparity under the New Testa- 
ment Dispensation. — This proved to be a begging of the question, 
and that we must learn from the Scriptures themselves whether 



If) CONTENTS. 

imparity was to continue among the ministers of the Gospel. — Dr. 
Raynolds acknowledges, that " those who had been most zealous for 
the Reformation of the Church for five hundred years before that 
did not believe in the divine institution of Episcopacy. — 
Dr. Raynoldl and Hooker admit this to have been the doctrine of 
t)i« Waldensian Churches, and of Huss and his followers, who had 
no minister raperiof to presbyters. — This proved to be the highest 
order of their minister! by the testimony of their own pastors, and 
other authorities.— Calvin and Beza, according to Dr. Raynolds, 
Hooker, and Heylin, denied the divine right of Episcopacy, and this 
Confirmed by their writings. — The rest of the leading foreign Re- 
formers rejected it, though Melancthon would have submitted to 
bishops, and wren I Pope, tor the sake of peace. — Zanchius unfairly 
claimed by Episcopalians as approving of the powers possessed by 
their bishops. — The foreign Protestant Churches without bishops, 
not from necessity, as Episcopalians allege, but from principle. — 
This proved by Jeremy Taylor, 412 



LETTERS 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 



LETTER I. 

Ungenerous and unprovoked attack by Puseyite Episcopalians on Presby" 
terian Churches. Alarming view presented by the former, of the spirit- 
ual condition of the latter. Necessity imposed on Presbyterians to defend 
their principles. 

Reverend Sir, — You cannot feel surprised, that, as 
a minister of the Presbyterian Church, I should ad- 
dress you on a subject, of paramount importance to 
Presbyterians in general, and especially to the clergy 
of the Church of Scotland, namely, the validity of our 
orders, the efficacy of the sacraments, as we adminis- 
ter them to our people, and the covenanted title of the 
pious individuals who belong to our communion to 
the blessings of salvation. You concede the charac- 
ter of a true Church to the Church of Rome, though 
it is stated in your homilies, that, " for the space of 
nine hundred years, it has been so far aside from the 
nature of the true Church, that nothing can be more;" 
and yet you deny it to us and our Presbyterian breth- 
ren. And the least offensive terms in which you are 
accustomed to speak of us, are like those employed 
by the late Archbishop Magee, when he said of us, 
as compared to the Papists, that, " while they had a 
church without a religion, we had a religion ivithout 
a Church." 

I have waited with anxiety to see whether these 
charges would be repelled by any of your leading 
2 



18 LETTERS ON 

dignitaries, and whether they would speak of us in 
the same terms of brotherly kindness in which Cran- 
mer spake of Knox, when he recommended him to be 
one of King Edward's preachers, for spreading the 
true religion in England; or in which Parker, Grindal, 
Whitgift, and Hooker spake of the orthodox Presby- 
terian Churches in their day; or whether they would 
evince the same spirit which was displayed by Bishop 
Hall, Ur. Carlton, and Dr. Ward, when they sat as 
the representatives of the Church of England in the 
Synod of Dort, of which the president was a Presby- 
terian, and the majority of the members were minis- 
ters and elders of Presbyterian Churches. But I have 
unhappily been disappointed; and while no friendly 
voice has been raised on our behalf by any of your 
bishops or your superior clergy, we continue to be de- 
nounced as destitute of any right to the honourable 
character of Christian ministers, because we have not 
derived our orders from diocesan bishops, who were 
regularly baptized, and received their orders from 
other bishops, in an unbroken succession from the 
Apostles. Our Churches are asserted to be unworthy 
of the name; our sacraments are represented as with- 
out virtue, and our people as only " midway" between 
the favoured members of Episcopalian Churches, "and 
the heathen, who are without God, without Christ, 
and without hope in the world." And on a recent 
occasion, when our title to the very name of a Chris- 
tian Church was directly questioned in the committee 
of the Society for propagating Christian Knowledge, 
neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Bishop 
of London, though among the most moderate of your 
prelates, said a word in support of it, but instructed 
their friends merely to move the previous question. 
You will not then think it strange, that when no one 
else will undertake our defence, we should attempt it 
ourselves; and while we acknowledge willingly your 
National Church to be a Church of Christ, should state 
he grounds on which we claim that character to our 
own Church, and to the rest of the orthodox Presby- 
terian Churches, which, though they have not dioce- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 19 

san, possess, we are persuaded, scriptural bishops, and 
enjoy as fully as any churches the means of salvation. 
I am aware, that if you were able to establish your 
position, it would be attended by the most serious 
and alarming consequences to the great majority of 
the Protestant Churches; and that they could not too 
soon either enter your communion, or apply to your 
Church to furnish them with bishops; for the only 
alternative, as far as is revealed in Scripture, would 
be diocesan Episcopacy, or perdition. How melan- 
choly would be the feelings which it would awaken 
in our breasts, respecting the numerous Presbyterians 
who lived in England in former times, whose Calamys, 
Pooles, Howes, Henrys, Wattses, and Doddridges 
could no longer be regarded as Christian ministers, 
nor the most pious individuals who were connected 
with their churches, as having had any well founded 
hope of future happiness, as well as respecting the 
whole of the learned and excellent individuals among 
Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, and Baptists 
in the present day. How affecting would be the state 
of the sainted martyrs of the Scottish Church in former 
ages, and of her Chalmerses, Gordons, and other dis- 
tinguished clergy, and of her pious people at the pre- 
sent time ; as well as of the ministers and members 
of our Dissenting Churches, all of whom would be 
labouring under a fearful delusion, as to the validity 
of their orders, and the efficacy of their privileges; and 
who would not only be living without the means of 
grace, but without the smallest prospect, from aught 
that is revealed in the sacred Scriptures, of their being 
received when they die into the abodes of blessedness! 
How painful would be the condition of the Presby- 
terians in Ireland, the effects of whose labours for 
the religious and moral regeneration of their country, 
especially in Ulster, will bear to be compared with 
those of the clergy, who received their orders from 
diocesan bishops, in any district of England, but 
whose Blairs, and Livingstons,* and Lelands, and 

* Blair and Livingston, with other eminent ministers of the Church 
of Scotland, laboured for a considerable time in Ireland. 



20 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

Plunkets,* of former times, as well as their Cookes, 
Hannahs, Stewarts, and Edgars in the present day, 
cannot be recognised as Christian ministers; nor can 
the members of their churches have any thing better 
to trust in at last, than God's uncovenanted mercy. 
And how dismal would be the state of the Presbyte- 
rians in France, who amounted, at one time, to a third 
part of the nation, and who numbered among their 
clergy, Daille, La Roque, du Moulin, and Blondel, 
and among the members of their communion, Marga- 
ret of Navarre, several princes of the blood, Coligny, 
du Plessis, and other distinguished individuals; and 
of the churches of Geneva, Switzerland, Holland, and 
the North American States, as well as of the Luther- 
ans on the Continent, who have only superintendents, 
and not diocesan bishops. Surely an opinion which 
leads to such consequences, and which unchristianizes 
at once the living and the dead, and takes from them 
all covenanted hopes of salvation, would require to 
be sustained by the most convincing reasoning; and 
it must be due at once to the memory of the one, and 
to the comfort of the other, to examine the evidence 
on which you maintain your position. I remain. 
Reverend sir, 

Yours, &c. 

» The father of Lord Plunket, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 
.vas a Presbyterian clergyman. See Philip's Specimens of Irish 
Eloquence, p. 357. And Lord Campbell, who succeeded him, was 
the son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister, and had only Presbyte- 
rian baptism ; so that both these Judges, though keepers of the con- 
science of the Sovereign, according to Dr. Pusey and .Mr. Gladstone, 
;ould not be Christians, or have any hope of salvation. 



21 



LETTER II. 

Exclusive claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to the Christian ministry, by no 
means of recent origin. — Saravia not the author of them, but Laud. — 
Account of the principal individuals in the Church of England who have 
brought them forward at different periods, when they considered her to 
be in danger. — Their doctrines proved to be contrary to her principles, 
from the Thirty-nine Articles, the writings of the bishops who composed 
her Formularies, and their immediate successors, their conduct towards 
Presbyterian Churches, the charter granted by Edward the Sixth to these 
Churches in London, and the establishment of Presbytery by Elizabeth in 
Jersey and Guernsey. 

Reverend Sir, — I am aware that your views of the 
spiritual condition of Presbyterian Churches, though 
startling to those who never heard them before, are 
by no means new. As Papists are accustomed to 
deny to your Church the name of a Church, and ad- 
dress the most alarming statements to her members, 
to induce them, if possible, to join their communion; 
so some of her more violent and indiscreet defenders 
have, at different periods, imitated then example, and 
attempted to terrify the Presbyterians of their day to 
enter within her pale, telling them that yours was 
the only Protestant Church in our native country, 
the ministers of which have authority from Christ to 
preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, and 
in which they can attain any covenanted title to sal- 
vation. If we may judge, however, of the measure 
of success which will attend your labours from the 
amount of theirs, it will be small indeed; and you 
will be far more likely to add to the converts to the 
Church of Rome from the Church of England, than to 
diocesan Episcopacy from the Presbyterian Churches. 
I lament to hear that the former has been the case to 
an appalling extent, and that there is reason to fear 
it will rapidly increase; for, as O'Connell remarked 
with great exultation, in a recent debate in the British 
Parliament, " you and your followers are on your 
way to Rome."'* And I am firmly persuaded, that 

* How much is the conduct of Dr. Pusey, as well as his writings, 
fitted to promote this painful result, when, as he acknowledges, he 



22 LETTERS ON 

if sentiments like yours continue to spread among the 
clergy of your Church, and arc propounded as openly, 
and it" not the smallest cognisance of them in the way 
of censure is taken by your bishops, and if some who 
maintain them, as in the case of Dr. Hook, are even 
promoted to new ecclesiastical honours, it may injure 
her materially, in the estimation of a number of her 
most pious members, and may constrain them in a 
short time to leave her communion. 

The first person in your Church, according to Voe- 
tius,* who avowed your opinion, was Adrian Sara- 
via, who was at one time a pastor of the Flemish 
Church, but became a convert to Episcopacy, and 
who, in a treatise which he published on degrees in 
the ministry, applied the same language to his former 
brethren, which is applied to your clergy, in common 
with the ministers of all other Protestant Churches, 
by the Church of Rome. It is but fair, however, to 
acknowledge, that this statement is controverted by 
Archbishop Whitgift, who says in a letter to Beza, 
that "his (Saravia's) purpose was wholly undertaken 
wilhout the injury or prejudice of any particular 
Church, and was designed merely to prove that it 
was agreeable to Scripture, and should be adopted in 
England. "t And this exposition of his sentiments 
seems to be confirmed by what is said by Saravia 
himself, who declares, in his answer to Beza, that he 
" admitted and excused what was done by the rest of 
the Reformed Churches, in regard to their polity, and 
did not blame or condemn them.":j: 

fell on his knees lately at the elevation of the Host in a Popish chapel 
in Dublin. He says, indeed, that he did not worship the consecrated 
wafer, but was desirous only to show his respect for it. How he 
can reconcile this with his remaining' a minister of the Church of 
England, whose homilies speak of the Church of Rome in the lan- 
Mim quoted p. 17, or with the apostolic admonition, that " we should 
abstain from all appearance of evil, and do nothing to hurt the con- 
science of a weak brother," I cannot comprehend. 

* PolitiiL' Ecclesiastics, pars sccunda, p. 837. See, too, Discourse 
on the Union between Scotland and England, p. 137. 

t Strype's Life of Whitgift, pp. 409—434. 

t " Factum Ecclesiarum Kcformatarum accipio ct excuso, non in- 
cuso nee exprobro." In his letter published by Strype, (Life of Whit- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 23 

But though he did not adopt, to their full extent, 
your intolerant views, they were embraced in part by 
a few of his cotemporaries, who, according to Sadeel, 
an early Reformer, contended for the necessity of 
Episcopal ordination, while they acknowledged the 
foreign " Reformed Churches to be true Churches of 
Christ."* They were avowed, however, without any 
limitation, by Archbishop Laud, who, as far as I can 
discover, was the first individual in the Church of 
England that maintained them openly, and who, 
according to Queen Henrietta, " had the heart of a 
good Catholic."t And though you have lately rob- 
bed him of the honour of giving a name to the party 
who profess his sentiments, and who are now deno- 
minated Puseyites, you ought certainly to resign it, for 
you, Dr. Hook, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Gladstone, are 
only his followers. "In July 1604," says Prynne, 
" hee proceeded batchelour in divinitie. His suppo- 
sition, when he answered in the divinity schooles for 
his degree, concerning the efficacie of baptisme, was 
taken verbatim out of Bellarmine, and hee then 
maintained there could bee no true Church without 

gift,) p. 424, he says of Presbytery, which he calls " a new mode of 
governing the Church," " that it was to be borne with till another 
that was better could be obtained." 

* " Veras Ecclesias Christi," Treatise de Legitima Ordinatione 
Ministrorum, p. 542, of his works. He represents Dr. Pusey's doc 
trine as held at that time to its full extent only by Papists, and reject- 
ed by the whole of the Reformers. 

t It is remarkable that even Heylin, though an admirer of the 
Archbishop, and a fierce Anti-Calvinist, says in his life of Laud, p. 
252, in reference to the changes in favour of Popery, which took 
place under his primacy, " The doctrines are altered in many things; 
as for example, the Pope not Antichrist, pictures, free will, &c. the 
thirty-nine articles seeming patient if not ambitious of some Catho- 
lic sense.'' , What a faithful representation of the interpretation 
given of them in the present day, as to many things, by Dr. Pusey, 
Archdeacon Wilberforce, Mr. Gladstone, and many others. 

As far as relates to the doctrine of the Articles on the leading 
points of evangelical belief, the testimony of Bishop Carlton is deci- 
sive. " I am well assured," says he, in his Examination of Mon- 
tague, p. 49, " that the learned bishops who were in the Reformation 
of the Church, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, did so 
much honour St. Augustine, that, in the collecting of the articles and 
homilies, and other things in that Reformation, they had an especial 
respect unto St. Augustine's doctrines." 



24 LETTERS ON 

diocesan bishops, for which Dr. Holland (then Doc- 
tor of the chaire) openly reprehended him in the 
schooles for a seditions person, who would unchurch 
the Reformed Churches beyond the seas, and sow a 
division between us and them who were brethren, by 
this novell Popish doctrine."* And when he was 
elevated to the primacy, he censured Bishop Hall for 
admitting that the foreign Protestant Churches were 
Churches of Christ; " a concession," he affirmed, (and 
you and Mr. Gladstone I have no doubt will agree 
with him,) " which was more than the cause of Epis- 
copacy would well bear."t It was the doctrine of 
Bishop Montague, who was at one time Archbishop 
Laud's chaplain, for he asserts expressly that " ordi- 
nation by Episcopal hands is so necessary, as that the 
Church is no true Church without it, and the ministry 
no true ministry, and ordinarily no salvation to be 
obtained without it." % It was the opinion of Durel, 
Beveridge and others, in the end of that century, for 
we are told by the younger Spanheim, who had 
laboured without success to reconcile them and the 
Presbyterians, that "he was little solicitous" about 
what they thought of a proposal which he had made 
to them for that purpose, " because to such a degree 
of perverseness had matters been carried by some of 
them, that they declared that out of the Episcopal 
communion there was no ordination, nor ministry, 
nor sacraments, nor Church, nor faith, nor salva- 
tion.'^ It was held by Dr. Hickes, who used the fol- 
lowing extraordinary language respecting the Church 
of Scotland: "Such a Church I think altogether as 
unworthy of the name of a Church, as a band of 
rebels in any country, who have overthrown the con- 
stitution of it, would be of the name of a kingdom, 
statu, or republic, because such a pretended Church 

* Trynnc's Brcviatc ofhis Life, p. 2. 

t Brcviatc, ]». 399. 

X Montague's Originea Ecclesiastics, p. 463 — 4G4. 

§ "Scu jam Hierarchicia h»c conditio probaretur, seu minus, 
Spanhemioa Bcaphara, icapham dixit, parum sollicitus quid Monla- 
cutius, quid DurclluH, quid Beveregius," &.c. Letter against Van 
der Wayen, p. 110, note. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 25 

is not only a variation from the Catholic Apostolic 
Church, but a sworn destructive confederacy against 
it, even the abomination of desolation in the house or 
kingdom of God, of which their pastors are not minis- 
ters, but most malicious enemies, — not pastors, but 
wolves of the flock."* And without dwelling on the 
names of Law or Dodwell, in regard to the last of 
whom, it is surprising that Bishop Burnet should 
have erred so egregiously, as to say that it was he 
who gave rise to this conceit," 1 1 may briefly notice, 
that it was maintained by Mr. Jones, the projector 
and patron of the British Critic, who affirms, that it 
was as impossible for any one to be saved out of the 
Episcopal Church from future wo, as it would have 
been for Noah and his family to have been saved 
from the deluge out of the ark. And it was strenu- 
ously defended by the late Archdeacon Daubeny in 
his Guide to the Church, who, in 1803, gave a 
remarkable proof of his adherence to your principles, 
for he refused to obey the orders of his primate to 
read a prayer on the national fast, because it recog- 
nised as true Churches the different Presbyterian 
Churches, in which act of contumacy he was follow- 
ed, I believe, by his colleague, Dr. Spry 4 It is pos- 
sible, however, that Archbishop Laud and you, with 
Mr. Percival, Mr. Gladstone, and others of your fol- 
lowers, may be right, and more liberal Episcopalians 
may be greatly in the wrong, and you may be acting 
under the influence of the truest kindness when you 
tell us, that as our ministers did not receive their 

* Preface to his Treatise on the Priesthood and the Dignity of the 
Episcopal Order, p. 200. In the same spirit, Wetmore, in his Vindi- 
cation of the Professors of the Church of England in Connecticut, pp. 
29 — 30, describes Presbyterian Churches as resembling, "in the 
mystical body of Christ, excrescences or tumours in the body natural, 
or perhaps as funoosities in an ulcerated tumour, the eating away 
of which by whatever means tends not to the hurt, but to the sound- 
ness and health of the body.' 1 '' 

t History of his own Times, vol. ii. p. 603. 

X With a strange inconsistency, he acknowledged, at the same 
time, as Christian ministers some foreign missionaries, who had only 
Lutheran orders. u The legs of the lame," as Solomon remarks, 
" arc not equal." 



26 LETTERS ON 

orders from diocesan bishops, regularly baptized and 
ordained in an unbroken series from the Apostles, 
they cannot be considered as Christian pastors, nor can 
their ministrations have any efficacy, nor can our peo- 
ple have any covenanted title to salvation. 

Now, the first observation which I have to offer on 
this doctrine is, that whether it is true or false, it is not 
the doctrine of the Church of England. 

The best way to ascertain the doctrine of a Church 
on any subject, is to examine what is said on it in her 
public formularies, in the writings of the individuals 
by whom they were drawn up, and of those who suc- 
ceeded them, and the course she pursued during the 
best and purest period of her history, when she acted 
honestly in accordance with her principles. Now, if we 
try your opinion by any of these tests, it appears to me 
to be destitute of the least semblance of support, and to 
be directly opposed to the doctrine of your Church 
respecting other Protestant Churches. The only things 
essential to a Christian Church, according to your 19th 
Article, are, "the pure preaching of God's word, and 
the due administration of the sacraments, according 
to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of neces- 
sity are requisite to the same." Now, the experience 
of centuries furnishes proof which you will not easily 
answer, that the word may be preached as purely by 
Presbyterian ministers as by those who have been 
ordained by diocesan bishops. Even Daubeny speaks 
with the highest respect of the writings of Doddridge, 
who never had Episcopal orders; and Archdeacon 
Wilberforce confesses, that it was by the perusal of 
one of them, the Rise and Progress, that his own vene- 
rable father was led to become pious; and he will 
not, I presume, venture to deny, that the very 
same doctrine may be preached to their hearers, 
by Presbyterian ministers, which has been so signally 
blessed, when it is met with in their writings.* And, 

* No work published by any Episcopalian divine, during the last 
century, has been so much honoured in the conversion of sinners, in 
all countries where Christianity is professed, as that invaluable trea- 
tise. Many ministers and members of the Church of England, as 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 21 

in regard to Presbyterian baptism, Mr. Gladstone at 
least ought to acknowledge its validity; otherwise his 
father, who was baptized by a Presbyterian, and was 
never re-baptized, would evidently be unchristianized, 
and could have no hope of salvation. Besides, as you 
acknowledge baptism by midwives, captains of ships 
at sea, and Popish priests, though some of the latter, as 
Jewel informs us, have been so ignorant as to use these 
words, when administering that ordinance, which are 
not to be found in any language, " Ego te baptizo in 
nomine Patria, Filia, et Spirita Sancta*," and as the 
Church of Rome, which you so much admire, accord- 
ing to the 36th and 23d canons of the Canon Law, 
considers baptism, even by Pagans, in case of neces- 
sity, as valid, I cannot see on what ground you can 
question the validity of Presbyterian baptism. It is 
declared, indeed, in your 23d Article, that " it is not 
lawful for any man to take upon him the office of 
public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the 
congregation before he be lawfully called." But it is 
added, " those we ought to judge lawfully called and 
sent which be chosen and called to that work by those 
who have public authority given unto them in the 
congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's 
vineyard." Upon which Bishop Burnet remarks, 
when commenting on the words, " those that are law- 
fully called and sent," (and his exposition was approv- 
ed of by Archbishop Tillotson, Bishop Stillingfleet, and 
other prelates,) " the article does not resolve this into 
any particular constitution, but leaves the matter open 
and large for such accidents as had happened, and 
such as might still happen. They who drew it up 
had the state of the different Chiwches before their 
eyes that had been differently constituted from 
their own." And says Bingham, your great anti- 
quary, " Episcopal divines have no need to have Epis- 
copal government put into the article (the 19th) as a 

well as others, have confessed, that it was the means of awakening 
their first serious convictions about salvation. 
* Defence of his Apology, p. 206. 



28 LETTERS ON 

third note of the Church, though the good men, the 
JBroivnists, were once for having discipline made a 
third note of the Church, and so aggrieved for the 
want of it, that," as you do toward us, " they un- 
churched the Church of England"* " In all their 
disputes with the Papists they never require more 
than these two notes of the Church, namely, the 
preaching of the pure word of God, and the due ad- 
ministration of the sacraments, according to Christ's 
ordinance, as stated in the 19th Article."! Agreeably 
to which, Hooper remarks, (Declaration of Christ and 
his Offices, c. 11,) "The commune wealthe of the trew 
Churche is knowyn by these two markes, the preach- 
ing of the Gospele, and the right use of the sacra- 
ments." If the language, however, of your formu- 
laries is so very general that it may be applied to Pres- 
byterian as well as to Episcopalian Churches, and if 
they were drawn up in this way, as is acknowledged 
by these prelates, and that distinguished antiquary, 
to avoid the smallest appearance of imputation against 
the validity of the orders of the former Churches, it 
cannot certainly be the doctrine of your Church that 
Presbyterian ministers ought not to be considered as 
Christian ministers, and that their people can have no 
covenanted hope of salvation. 

* French Church's Apology for the Church of England, vol. ii. of 
his works, |>. 7:27. 

+ Page 7:26. The same view of the meaning of the 19th Article 
is given by Bishop Tomline, who represents Dr. Pusey and Mr. Glad- 
stone's sentiments as opposed to the principles of the Church of Eng- 
land, and held only by the Church of Home. "In like manner," 
says he, in his BlemcnU of I heoiogy, vol. ii. p. 3:25, " we often speak 
of the Church of England, of Holland, of Geneva, and of the Lutheran 
Church, and all these different Churches are parts oftht visible Catholic 
Church. It is well known that the Church of Rome considers itself 
as the only Christian Church; but, on the other hand, we extend the 
name to any congregation of fn it h fn I men in the which I fir pure icord of 
Qod is j,i< tirhi el, and the sacraments duly ministered according to 
Christ's ordinance^ in all those things that of necessity arc requisite 
to tin same. The adherence, therefore, to the fundamental principles 
of the Gospel \e sufficient to constitute a visible Church." And he 
adds, p. 326, M Upon the same principle we forbear to inquire what 
precise additions or defects in the administration of the sacraments 
ordained by Christ annul their efficacy." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 29 

This view of the principles which I attribute to 
your Church is confirmed by the fact, that neither 
Cranmer, nor any of your leading Reformers who 
drew up the forty-two articles of Edward, nor Jewel, 
who bore a principal part in reducing them to thirty- 
nine in the reign of Elizabeth, believed in the divine 
origin of Episcopacy, but taught expressly, that in 
the days of the Apostles, bishops and presbyters con- 
stituted only one order. I shall show afterwards that 
this was the opinion of Jewel; and it was undeniably 
that of Cranmer and his fellow Reformers, for Bishop 
Burnet has preserved a paper subscribed by him, the 
Archbishop of York, eleven bishops, and many doc- 
tors and civilians, in which they say, that "in the 
New Testament no mention is made of any degrees 
or distinctions of orders, but only of deacons or 
ministers, and of priests or bishops." Nor is it any 
objection to this statement, that it is affirmed in the 
preface to the Book of Ordination, that " from the 
Apostles' time there have been three orders, bishops, 
priests and deacons;" for it is said only that they 
were from or after their time, but not in their time. 
But if they admit distinctly that the superiority of 
bishops to presbyters was a matter of mere expedi- 
ency, and not of divine institution, will it be believed, 
for a moment, by any candid individual, that they 
could intend to teach in your articles the doctrine 
which you advocate, namely, that Presbyterian min- 
isters, however orthodox and pious, are not Christian 
ministers, and that their people are only midway 
between you and heathenism? 

And that such cannot be the doctrine which is 
sanctioned by your formularies will be manifest, I 
apprehend, if you look into the writings of the men 
who made them, and give them credit for ordinary 
honesty and consistency, or into the writings of their 
successors for seventy years, and attend to their con- 
duct either towards Presbyterian ministers, or Pres- 
byterian churches. If Cranmer, for instance, had 
held your views, and had intended to introduce them 
into the Articles, would he have "sent letters," as 



30 LETTERS ON 

Strype informs us, "to Bullinger, Calvin, and Me- 
lancthon, disclosing to them his pious design to draw 
up a book of articles, and rcquesiijig their counsel 
and furtherance?" Or would he have appointed 
Knox, along with Grindal, to examine it before it 
was adopted? Or would he have submitted the 
Prayer Book to the Genevese Reformer, or said to 
him, that " he could do nothing more profitable to 
the Church than to write often to the King?" Or 
would he have made two of his friends, Bucer and 
Martyr, the first Protestant Professors of Theology 
in Oxford and Cambridge?* Would any of the 
bishops have recommended that the youth should be 
examined in his catechism after evening prayers? 
(Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 91.) Or would his insti- 
tutes, as is mentioned by Bayle, " have been placed 
in the parish churches, that the people might read 
them, and in each of the universities, that after the 
students had finished their course of philosophy, those 
of them who were intended for the ministry might 
be first of all lectured from that book?" If Edward 
the Sixth, and his bishops and counsellors, had enter- 
tained your views and Mr. Gladstone's, and had 
considered them as taught in your Articles, would he 
have granted a charter to the Church of the Germans 
in London, though they were not Episcopalians, 
allowing them, among other things, " to exercise their 
own proper rites and ceremonies, and their own pro- 
per peculiar ecclesiastical discipline — that a Church 
instructed in truly Christian and apostolical opin- 
ions and rites, and grown up under holy ministers, 
might be preserved . ? t If Elizabeth and her prelates, 
and the enlightened statesmen who directed her 
counsels, had believed that your sentiments accorded 

• Strype's Lift of Cranmer, pp. 407-413; Council Book and 
Strype's Cranmer, p. 273; Nicholas Comment, on the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, Preface, p. •>; Gerdesii Hist Reformationis, torn. iv. 
p. 36.3; Btrype's Annals, vol. ii. p 91. Peter Alexander also, a 
minister of* the Protestant Chart h of Prance, and other foreign Pro- 
testant clergymen, received prebends from Cranmer. 

t Some excellent observations on this charter may be met with in 
an lOssay on the Loyalty of Presbyterians, published in 1713. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 31 

either with Scripture, or with the Articles of your 
Church, would she have passed an act in the thir- 
teenth year of her reign, as is mentioned by Strype, 
" by which the ordinations of the foreign Reformed 
Churches were declared valid, and those that had 
no other orders were made of the same capacity with 
others to enjoy any place in the ministry within 
England, merely on their subscribing the Arti- 
cles?"* Would she have interposed in behalf of 
the Reformed Churches, when the Lutheran princes 
threatened to persecute them, because they refused 
to subscribe the Form of Concord, denominating them 
" Pious Churches," or proposed that they should 
meet with deputies from the Churches of Scotland, 
Basil, Embden, Bremen, &c. and draw up a common 
Confession of Faith, which was to be reviewed by 
Gualter, and Beza ;t or, as is stated by her successor 
and Dr. Heylin, would she have " established the 
French Presbyterian Church" in the islands of Jer- 
sey and Guernsey? % If Archbishop Parker, and the 
bishops of his day, had concurred in your exposition 
of the doctrines of your Church, would they have 
approved of the Second Helvetic Confession ? (Strype's 
Annals, vol. i. p. 488); or would his successor Grin- 
dal have applied to the magistrates of Strasburgh, in 
behalf of the Dutch Church in that city, representing 
its members as " members of Christ. ?" or to the Lords 
of the Council for a contribution to Geneva, " for the 
relief of that poor town, which had served for a 
nursery unto God's Church, as well as for the main- 
tenance and conservation of true religion?" or 
would he have sustained the orders of a Scotsman of 

* Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 514. 

t Blondel's Actcs Authcntiqucs des Eglises Reformecs de France, 
Germanic 1 , Grande Bretagne, Pologne, Hongric, Pais Bas, touchant la 
Paix tt Charite Fraturnellc; edit. 1655, pp. 61-62. Elizabeth sent an 
ambassador to a meeting of the deputies of these Churches at Frank- 
fort. 

t In regard to the Islands of Jersey and Guernsey, see her letter 
to the baiilie and jurats of the former, in Fallo's Account of Jersey, 
p. L23. When a synod of the Churches met, June 28, 1576, and 
drew up their plan of Church government, the Governors of the 
island attended and ratified it by their signatures; pp. 124-125. 



32 LETTERS ON 

the name of Morison, " according, " as he expressed 
it, " to the laudable form and rite of the Reformed 
[Presbyterian) Church of Scotland?"* And with- 
out quoting at length the sentiments of Jewel ;t of 
Bishop Cox, who, in a letter to Gualter in 1565, 
speaks of the Church of Geneva as a Church of God, 
and its ministers as faithful ministers; J of Hooker,§ 
and of Sutclive, who, in his treatise on the Church, 
maintains, that " that is an orthodox and truly Catho- 
lic Church, which, though dispersed throughout Eng- 
land, Scotland, Germany, France, and other countries, 
is united by a harmonious confession of the Christian 
faith ;" and of Bridges, who says that "the ditference 
of these things, (t. e. the manner of orders, offices, 
rites, and ceremonies,) concerning ecclesiastical gov- 
ernment, is not directive materiall to salvation, neither 
ought to break the bond of peace and Christian con- 
cord," || may I solicit your attention to the opinion of 
Archbishop Whitgift, who was likely to be as well 
acquainted with the doctrine of your Articles, as you, 
or Dr. Hook, or any of your followers? 

" The essentiall notes of the Churche," says he, 
" be these only, the true preaching of the worde of 
God, and the right administration of the sacramentes, 
for, as Master Calvine sayth, in his booke against 
the Anabaptistes, This honour is meete to be given 
to the worde of God, and to his sacramentes, that 
wheresoever we see the worde of God truely preach- 
ed, and God accordyng to the same truely wor- 
shipped, and the sacramentes withoute superstition 
administered, there we may without all controversie 
conclude the Churche of God to be. The same is the 
opinion of other godly and learned writers, and the 
judgment of the Reformed Churches, as appeareth 
by their Confessions. So that notwithstanding govern- 
ment, or some kynde of government, may be a parte 

* Strypc's Grindal, p 271. 

+ Defence of tin- Apology, p. 28. 

X Strypc's Annals, vol. i. Appendix, p. 57. 

§ Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. p. 152. 

|| Defence of the Government of the Church of England, p. 87. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 33 

of the Church, touching the outward forme and per- 
fection of it, yet it is not such a part of the essence 
and being, but that it may be the Church of Christ 
without this or that kind of government, and there- 
fore the kynde of government is not necessarie unto 
salvation/'* It is true, that after his elevation to the 
Primacy, he first suspended and then deposed Tra- 
vers, because he had not received ordination from a 
diocesan bishop; yet it was not because he regarded 
Presbyterian orders as invalid in a religious point of 
view, but because he considered Episcopacy as best 
adapted to the civil constitution of England;\ for 
he declared expressly, that "he did not pinch at 
any Church that used Presbytery, so that they had 
the consent of the civil magistrate; 7 ' % and that "he 
did not condemne any Churches where that govern- 
ment was lawfully and without daunger received, but 
had only regard to whole kingdomes, especially this 
realme, where it could not," he supposed, "but be 
dangerous," § because Elizabeth was an absolute 
monarch, and would admit no control either in 
Church or State. 

I might show how much your sentiments about the 
meaning of the Articles differ from those of James the 
First and his counsellors, for, in 1615, he sent Du 
Moulin to the Presbyterian Synod of the Isle of 
France, to urge them to unite with the other Protes- 
tant Churches who were sound in the faith, and ready 
to acknowledge each other as Christian Churches, and 
to exercise mutual forbearance, in so far as they dif- 

* Defense of his Aunswerc to Cartwright's Admonition, p. 491. 

t See a number of passages in the Defense immediately before 
p. 658. Notes on Travers' Reasons, Append, to Strype's Whitgift, 
p. 108. 

J Defense of the Aunswerc, p. 633. 

§ Defense of the Aunswerc, p. 658. In p. 658, 659, he attempts 
to prove that " there is no one ccrtainc kinde of government in the 
Churche which must of ncccssitie be perpetually observed;" and in 
p. 389, that "the cxtcrnall government of the Church must bee accord- 
ing to the form of government used in the commonwealth," which 
goes to the opposite extreme of error to the opinion of Dr. Pusey and 
the Papists. 

3 



34 LETTERS OX 

fered, about ceremonies and Church government.' 
And he issued a proclamation at the same time, con- 
firming the establishment of Presbyterianism in Jersey 
and Guernsey, " after the pious example of his sister 
Elizabeth, and for the advancement of the glory of 
Mmighty dud. anil the edification of his Church.^i 
"He is blind," said Bishop Andrews, though a high 
Episcopalian, "who does not see churches existing 
without it, (Episcopalian Church government,) and 
he must have a heart as hard as iron, who can deny 
them salvation. "i "Your praise," said Dr. Carlton 
in the Synod of Uort to the ministers of the Church of 
Holland, " is in all the Churches."§ " In doctrine and 
the profession of the orthodox faith," says Dr. Cra- 
kenthorp, " there is no difference between us and the 
Reformed Churches; and while we agree in this, we 
can easily forbear with each other as to ceremonies 
and government." || And without quoting at length 
from the writings of Dr. Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury, 
who acknowledges that "there lived in the Church of 
England many reverend and worthy men, which did 
not reject the Presbytery;"^ of Dr. Field, who, in his 
treatise on the Church, employs a whole chapter to 
prove against Cardinal Bellarmine, a strenuous de- 
fender of your opinion, that the Reformed Churches, 
"whose ministers were ordained only by presbyters, 
did not cease, on that account, to have any ministerie 
at all;"'** r and of Bishop Davenant, who says, "we 

* Sec the Escrit de M. du Moulin, Envoye de Londres au Synode 
Provincial de l'lsle de France, in Blondcl's Actes Authentiques, p. 
72—74. 

t He declares them to be " true and lawful Churches," because 
they were not in England, but in part of the duchy of Normandy, 
for toleration was then unknown in Britain among- the Episcopalians, 
though it was practised among the Presbyterians in Holland. 

I Keapon. ad Secundatn Epist. Molintei, inter opera, p. 35. 

§ Brandt'l History of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 4 — 6. 

iio Ecclesioe Anglicans contra do Dominis, p. 254. He 
says, p. 255, to (i« Dominis, who had censured the Church of Eng- 
land for endeavouring to effect a union between herself and the other 
Reformed Churches, "neither yon yourself nor any other could have 
bestowed on her a finer encomium." 

1 Eleutheria, p. 90. »• (hap. 39, book 3. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 35 

account of them, (the Scottish, Irish, and all other 
forraigne Churches of the Reformation,) as our breth- 
ren in Christ, and doe solemnly protest that we enter- 
tain a holy and brotherly communion with them,"* 
I shall notice only further, the sentiments of Arch- 
bishop Usher and Bishop Hall, who were certainly 
as likely to be acquainted with the true meaning of 
your Articles, as you, Mr. Newman, Mr. Gladstone, 
or any other of your followers. " For testifying my 
communion with these Churches," (those of France 
and Holland,) said the first of these prelates, "which 
I do love and honour as true members of the Church 
Universal, I do profess, that with like affection, I 
should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of 
the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I should 
do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in 
Charenton."t And, said the second, " Blessed be God 
there is no difference in any essential matter between 
the Church of England and her sisters of the Refor- 
mation ; we accord in every point of Christian doc- 
trine without the least variation ; their public Confes- 
sions and ours are sufficient conviction to the world 
of our full and absolute agreement : the only differ- 
ence is in the forme of outward administration, where- 
in we are so far agreed, that we all profess this forme 
not to be essential to the being of a Church, (though 
much importing the well or better being of it, accord- 
ing to our several apprehensions thereof) and that 
we do all retain a reverent and loving opinion of each 
other, in our own several ways ; not seeing any reason 
why so poor a diversity should work any alienation 
of affection in us towards one another."^ I might 
easily have added many other testimonies from your 
most eminent writers during the first sixty years of 
the seventeenth century, but I trust that what has 
been produced will be considered as sufficient to au- 
thorise me to maintain, that there is not a fact more 

* Drury's Fides Catholica, p. 41. 

t Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh on certain points, 
p. 1 1 '5. 

t Peace Maker, vol. iii. of his Works, p. 560. 



36 LETTERS OS 

clearly established in the history of your Church, than 
that the sentiments which have been expressed by 
yourself and your followers, respecting the ministers 
and members of Presbyterian Churches, are in direct 
opposition to her fundamental principles. 

You may tell me, I am aware, with the late Arch- 
deacon Daubeny, that " if I read over the 9th, 10th, 
and 11th canons, I will find that no meetings, assem- 
blies, or congregations of the King's born subjects, but 
those of the Established Church, may rightly chal- 
lenge to themselves the name of true and lawful 
Churches."* But you must surely know, that these 
canons were never confirmed by act of Parliament; 
that they were passed by the Convocation, when the 
principle of toleration was unknown, and that now, 
when it is recognised by the law of the land, they are 
virtually neutralised. The men who made them did 
not deny that Presbyterian Churches in other coun- 
tries were true and lawful Churches, but maintained 
merely that they were not so in England, because 
they imagined that the Sovereign might model as he 
pleased the government of the Church, and the only 
polity which ought to be established there was that 
of diocesan Episcopacy, because it was best fitted to 
promote absolute monarchy. Such, we have seen, 
were the sentiments of Whitgift, and others of your 
bishops. Such were the sentiments of Downam, who 
observes, in the defence of his famous sermon, seven 
years after the passing of these canons, " the King 
indeed doth say, that it is granted to every Christian 
king, prince, and commonwealthe, to prescribe to 
their subjects the outward form of ecclesiastical regi- 
ment which may seem best to agree with the form 
of their civil government.''^ Such were the senti- 
ments of Lord Bacon, whom James at one time con- 
sulted frequently in regard to the Church. " I for my 
part,'* says lie, "do confess, that in revolving the 
Scriptures, I could never find, but that God had left 
the like liberty to the church government, as he had 

* Appendix to his Guide to the Church, p. 270 
t Page 8. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 37 

done to the civil government, to be varied according 
to time, and place, and accidents. The substance of 
doctrine is immutable, and so are the general rules of 
government; but for rites and ceremonies, and for the 
particular hierarchies, policies, and disciplines of 
Churches, they be left at large."* And, says James 
himself, " I protest upon mine honour, I mean it not 
generally (the name of Puritan,) of all preachers or 
others that like better the single form of policie of our 
Church, (the Church of Scotland,) then of the many 
ceremonies in the Church of England, that are per- 
suaded their bishops smell of Papal supremacies 
that the surplice, the corner cap, and such like, are 
the outward badges of Popish errors. No, I am so 
far from being contentious about these things, (which, 
for my own part, I ever esteemed indifferent,) as I do 
equally love and honour the learned men of either 
these opinions."! But if such were the sentiments of 
the King himself, and of some of his principal advisers, 
and of the leading members of both Houses of Convo- 
cation, who made these canons, can you seriously 
believe it to be the doctrine of these men, or the doc- 
trine of your Church in the present day, that none but 
clergymen who have received their orders from dio- 
cesan bishops, in an unbroken series from the Apos- 
tles, are Christian ministers, and that none but the 
members of Episcopalian Churches have a covenant- 
ed title to the blessings of salvation? % 

I remain, Reverend Sir, yours, &c. 

* Considerations touching the Pacification of the Church, address- 
ed to King James, vol. iii. of his Works, p. 150. 

t Basilicon Doron, p. 144 of his Works. 

X James no doubl endeavoured afterwards to crush the Presbyte- 
rians, but it was owing entirely to their refusing to submit to his 
absolute authority, in religious as well as civil matters, and to the 
gross flattery which he received from the bishops, while the former 
spoke to him openly and honestly, when they could not agree to his 
claims. " I have ever," said Bishop Barlow, (preface to his account 
of the Hampton Court Conference, p. 2,) u accounted the personal 
commendation of living princes in men of our sort a verball symony.^ 
And yet compare with this remark the adulation which he acknow- 
ledges was paid to James at this conference by the Episcopalians, 
f>. 20— G2, 83—84. Bancroft fell on his knees and said to him, "I 
protest my heart melteth for joy that Almighty God, of his singular 



3S 



LETTER III. 



These doctrines condemned in the strongest terms by the most distinguish- 
ed Protestant Statesmen after the Reformation ; Cecil, the Lord Presi- 
dent of Queen Elizabeth's Council, Sir Francis Knollys, and Lord Bacon, 
and denounced as " a Popish conceit," by the leading bishops and clergy. 
Dissimilarity between the Church of England, beyond whose pale, and 
that of the Church of Home, Puseyites deny that there is any hope of 
salvation, and the Apostolic Church, in the extent of its bishoprics, the 
civil power exercised by its prelates, the multitude of its ceremonies, and 
" its want," according to its own acknowledgment, "of a godly disci- 
pline." 

Reverend Sir, — I trust that it has been proved in 
the preceding letter, that so far were your principles 
from receiving the smallest countenance from the 
clergy of your Church, for seventy years after the 
time of the Reformation, they were spoken of gene- 
rally in terms of the strongest and most decided dis- 
approbation. Nor were these feelings confined to 
your leading dignitaries, but were expressed by some 
of the most talented and distinguished among the 
laity ; and, in particular, by some of the most illustri- 
ous of Elizabeth's ministers, who constituted the pil- 

mercy, hath given us such a king, as since Christ's time hath never 
been." And said Chancellor Egerton, " I have never seen the king 
and priest so fully united in one person." Upon which it was observed 
by Warburton, that " Sancho Panza never made a better speech, 
nor more to the purpose, during his government." Nay, in the pre- 
face to the edition of the works of James, which was published by 
Bishop Bilson, a. d. 1G1G, during the life of that monarch, he con- 
cludes one of ihc most fulsome pieces of flattery that was ever writ- 
ten, by raising him in one respect above Solomon ! How justly these 
praises were bestowed, may be learned from James's " Counterblaste 
to Tobacco," to which he had a great aversion, and his Treatise on 
Dcmonologic, the last of which 19 represented by the bishop as " a 
rare piece for many precepts and experiments, both in divinitie and 
naturall philosophic." The following is a specimen of his wisdom 
and learning, taken from the titles of some of the chapters of the lat- 
ter work, and the illustrations are not less worthy of the man who 
was superior to Solomon. " The forme of the conventions of witches, 
and of their adoring of their master;" book ii. chap. 3. "What are 
the ways possible, whereby the witches may transport themselves to 
places farrc distant;" chap. 4. " Why there are more loomen of that 
craft than men;" chap. 5; and, "What sort of folkcs are least or 
most subject to receive harm by witchcraft;" chap. 6, &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 39 

lars of her political greatness, and whose extensive 
acquirements, even in theological learning, present a 
very striking and instructive contrast to those of Mr. 
Gladstone, as far as we can judge from his writings. 
So far was Cecil from approving of your sentiments, 
that he urged his Mistress to attempt that general 
union among Protestants to which I have already 
alluded, without any regard to their different forms of 
ecclesiastical polity. So little did another of her most 
enlightened counsellors sympathise with your views, 
that when Archbishop Sandys endeavoured to deprive 
Whittingham of the deanery of Durham, because he 
had received only Presbyterian orders, it failed. And 
when the attempt was renewed, "it again, 7 ' says 
Strype, "fell to the ground; the Lord President ob- 
serving, with some warmth, before the Archbishop 
and the other members of the Commission, that he 
could not in conscience agree to deprive him for that, 
for it would be ill taken of all the godly and learn- 
ed at home and abroad, that we should allow" as 
you propose, "of the Popish massing priests in our 
ministry, and disallow of ministers made in a 
Reformed Church"* So greatly was Lord Bacon 
opposed to your opinion, when it was brought for- 
ward by some in the days of Laud, that he speaks of 
it in terms of decided reprobation. " Yea, and some 
indiscreet persons/' says he, "have been bold in 
open preaching to use dishonourable and derogatory 
speech and censure of the Churches abroad, and that 
so far, as some of our men, (as I have heard,) ordain- 
ed in foreign parts, have been pronounced to be no 
lawful ministers. Thus we see the beginnings were 
modest, but the extremes are violent, so as there is 
almost as great a distance now of either side from 
itself as was at the first of one from the other."! 
Ami in 15SS, when Bancroft, in his sermon at Paul's 
Cross, advocated only the divine institution of Episco- 
pacy, without unchurching the Presbyterian Churches, 

* Strypc's Annals, vol. ii. p. 523. 

rtisemcnt touching the Controversies of the Church of Eng. 
land, Works, vol. iv. p. 426. 



40 LETTERS ON 

it excited the astonishment of Sir Francis Knollys, 
Queen Elizabeth's kinsman, who had never heard 
such doctrine propounded before ; and upon writing 
to Dr. Reynolds, he received a long and able confuta- 
tion of it, which I am firmly persuaded you have 
never seen, and which cannot be too generally perus- 
ed by the members of your Church in the present 
day. 

Not only, however, was your opinion condemned 
by the clergy and laity of your Church, at the period 
referred to, but it was considered as one of the pecu- 
liar and most obnoxious tenets of the Church of Rome, 
by which she was distinguished from the whole of the 
Protestant Churches. 

Papists, you know, say of their Church, that it alone 
is the true Church in which you will meet with the 
real apostolical succession and the means of salvation. 
"Nevertheless," says Jewel, "in this they triumph;" 
and it is the very language which is employed by 
your followers respecting the Church of England to 
British Presbyterians, "that they bee the Church; 
that their Church is Christ's Spouse, the pillar of truth, 
the arke of Noe, and that without it there is no hope 
of salvation."* And Professor Nichol Burn, in an 
address to James the First, gives thanks to God, " be- 
cause of his infinite gudness, he had granted him 
knowlege to his aeternal salvation, delivering him out 
of the thraldome and bondage of that idolatrous Cal- 
vinisme, (Presbytery,) with the quhilk, alace, manie, 
be ane blind zeal, ar fraudfullie deceavit, to the lament- 
able perdition of their awin saulis, except be earnest 
repentance spedelie they retnrne to their spiritual 
mother, the halie Catholic Kirk."t Now, it is impos- 
sible to conceive stronger terms than those in which 
your Reformers reprobate the idea, that communion 
either with the Church of Rome, or any other Epis- 

* Apology, part 4. chap. 9. divis. 2. Sec, too, part 6. chap. 20. 
divis. 1. 

t Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, 
halden in the realme of Scotland, the zear of God ane thousand five 
hundred and fourscoir zeirs, &C, by Nicol Burnc, p. 2. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 41 

copalian Church, is necessary to salvation, or that 
orders derived from diocesan bishops are necessary, 
on the part of faithful pastors, to give efficacy to their 
ministrations, or to entitle their Churches to the hon- 
ourable character of Christian Churches. " There- 
fore," says Jewel to Harding the Jesuit, " we neither 
have bishops without church, nor church without 
bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this 
day depend of them whom you often call apostates, 
as if our Church were no Church without them. Not- 
withstanding, if there were not one of them, (the 
clergy who had received their orders from diocesan 
bishops,) nor of us (the bishops) left alive, yet will 
not therefore the whole Church of England flee to 
Lovaine" for orders. And he declares, that in such 
circumstances pious laymen might renew the succes- 
sion* "The Pape," observes Whitgift, (and it is 
remarked by Strype, that his Aims were to Cartwright 
may be justly esteemed and applied to as one of the 
public books of the Church of England,!) " The Pape 
says, that to be subject to him is of necessitie unto 
salvation; so do not our archbishops." % "Here is 
the difference between our adversaries the Papists 
and us," says Willet. " They say it is of necessitie 
to be subject to the Pope, and to bishops and arch- 
bishops under him, as necessarily prescribed in the 
word; but so doe not our bishops and archbishops, 
which is a notable difference between the bishops of 
the Popish Church and of the Reformed Churches. 
Let every Church use that forme which best fitteth 
their state: in external matters every Church is free, 
not one bound to the prescription of another, so they 
measure themselves by the rule of the word."§ And, 

* Defense of the Apology, p. 129-130, &c. It deserves to be 
remembered, that Strype says, " it was composed and written by the 
reverend father as the public confession of the Catholic and Christian 
faith of all Englishmen, wherein is taught our consent with the Ger- 
man, Helvetian, French, Scotch, Genevan, and other Reformed 
Churches." Annals, vol. i. p. 251. 

t Slrype's Whitgift, p. 42. 

t Defense of his Aunswere, p. 382. 

§ Willct's Synopsis Papismi, Appendix to the Fifth General Ques- 
tion. 



42 LETTERS ON 

says Downam to a Puritan who had animadverted 
on his sermon, " the Popish opinion is farre different 
from that which I hold; for they hold the order and 
superiority of bishops to be jure divino, implying 
thereby a perpetual necessitie thereof. Insomuch that 
where bishops are not to ordaine they thinke there 
can be no ministers or priests, and consequently no 
church. I hold otherwise. Wherefore my opinion 
being so different from the Popish conceit, who seeth 
not that the judgment of our divines which is opposed 
to the doctrine ofthq Papists is not opposed to mine?" 
Nor was the difference less forcibly characterised by 
Dr. Holland, when he denounced your opinion, as 
stated by Laud, as " a novell Popish doctrine." If 
your divines, however, till the days of Downam, con- 
sidered that opinion as " a Popish conceit," and " a 
novel Popish doctrine," and the opposite principle as 
constituting " a notable difference" between your 
Church and the Papists, I trust you will not consider 
me as wanting in charity, if, under the sanction of 
such high and venerable authority, I represent you in 
the character which they would unquestionably have 
assigned to you, had they been living at present, 
namely, as a patron of Popery, and to express my 
astonishment that you and your followers should be 
allowed to continue in the communion of your Church. 
But you may tell me, that though it is a Popish, it 
is nevertheless a scriptural doctrine, for the Church of 
which we read, Eph. ii. 20, as having been founded 
by the Apostles, and out of which there is no salva- 
tion, contained in it bishops, priests and deacons, and 
it is only when a Church resembles the Church as it 
was then constituted in the orders of its clergy, and 
its form of government, that it is entitled to be con- 
sidered as a Church of Christ. You must prove, how- 
ever, before you deduce this inference, that the Church 
which is there referred to, and out of which it is 
declared, in other passages, there is no salvation, is 
the visible Church possessing in all respects the very 
form of external government which was at first estab- 
lished. The Church of England at the time of the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 43 

Reformation, as I have already showed you, did not 
think so, nor was it the opinion of any of the Protes- 
tant Churches. " There are two kyndes of govern- 
ment," said Whitgift; "the one invisible, the other 
visible; the one spiritual!, the other externall. The 
invisible and spirituall government of the Church is, 
when God by his spirite, gyftes and ministerie of his 
worde, doth governe it by ruling in the hearts and 
consciences of men, and directing them in all things 
necessarie unto everlasting life. This kinde of gov- 
ernment indeed is necessarie unto salvation. The 
visible and external government is that which is exe- 
cuted by manne, and consisteth of external discipline 
and visible ceremonies, practised in that Church." 
And then, after remarking that " the worde necessarie 
signified eyther that without the which a thing cannot 
be, or that without the which it cannot so well and 
conveniently be/ 7 he adds, "I confesse, that in a 
church collected together in one place, and at libertie, 
government is necessarie in the second kind of neces- 
sities but that any one kind of government is so neces- 
sarie, that ivithout it the Church cannot be saved, I 
utterlie denie."* And he was justified in doing so, 
for it is not to faith produced only by the preaching 
of a diocesan bishop, or of clergymen ordained by 
him, that salvation is promised in the Scriptures, but 
to true faith produced by the preaching of any pious 
ministers who have received their orders through a 
regular channel. It is not to repentance resulting 
from the instructions only of Episcopalian clergy- 
men deriving their orders from diocesan bishops y 
that forgiveness is promised through the blood of the 
cross, (Acts iii. 19; xi. 18;) but to sincere repentance, 
whoever may be the ministers whose impressive state- 
ments and touching appeals, accompanied by the influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit, have implanted it in the 
heart. And it is not to holiness attained only tinder 
the ministry of Episcopalian clergymen, but of all 
evangelical pastors, that the Almighty has declared, 
Heb. xii. 14, that the individual who possesses it shall 

* Defense of the Aunswere, p. 81. 



44 LETTERS ON' 

"see the Lord." But perhaps I am wrong in sup- 
posing that you will admit that faith, or repentance, 
or personal holiness, can be attained without the 
j)ale of Episcopalian Churches, and that to your 
other tenets this must be added, (I shall be glad if you 
disclaim it,) that nothing which can be regarded as 
spiritually good can result from the labours of Presby- 
terian ministers.* 

But if there be no revealed or covenanted hope of 
salvation to the members of a church, unless she con- 
tinue in the state in which the primitive Church was 
left by the Apostles as to the orders of her clergy, 
and government, and worship, is there no reason to 
fear as to their personal salvation to the ministers 
and members of the Church of England? Does she 
remain in the state of the Apostolic Church, both 
as to the offices and distinctions which exist among 
her ministers? The most eminent individuals who 
laboured zealously for the purification of the Church, 
from the earliest ages till the time of the Reformation, 
would not have thought so, for they have declared it 
as their opinion, that in the time of the Apostles there 
were only two orders of ministers in the Church, 
bishops or presbyters, whose office appeared to them 
to be the same, and deacons, and that there ought 
still to be no more. Such was the opinion of the 
author of the work entitled Aetates Ecclesias, which, 
according to Flaccius lllyricus, was written long be- 
fore the Reformation. t Such was the opinion of the 

* I would like to know whether Puseyites believe that the pious 
conversation of wives, who are Presbyterians, is likely to win their 
husbands to the faith, and love, and obedience of the Gospel, accord- 
ing to the statement of Peter, in his 1st Epistle, iii. 1, or whether it 
must be expected to fail, because they have never had Episcopal bap- 
tism, and are not in communion with Episcopalian Churches. And 
I would wish also to be informed, whether they believe the conversa- 
tion of pious Presbyterians can do no good to others in health or 
sickness, or when they happen to visit them on their beds of death. 
I take it for granted that they are persuaded there is no reason to 
hope that the preaching of the most pious Presbyterian ministers can 
lead to the conversion of a single sinner. 

t " Distinguitur autem juristis ipsa primitiva ccclesia in primam 
et secundam undc Dist. 93. legimus, &c. The Primitive Church is 
distinguished by the jurists into the first and second. In the first 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 45 

celebrated Archbishop of Armagh, the great reformer 
of his day, usually denominated Ricardus Armacanus, 
who, though himself a dignified Episcopalian, bears 
a striking testimony to Presbyterian principles, as 
characterizing the Apostolic Church, for he observes, 
that "in the writings of the Evangelists or Apos- 
tles, no difference is to be discovered between bishops 
and simple priests who are called Presbyters, whence 
it follows that their power in all things is the same, 
and they are equal from their order"* Such, too, 
was the opinion of Wicklif, the harbinger of the 
Reformation in England, for one of his principles, 
which was controverted at great length by Wood- 
ford, was, that, "in the time of the Apostle Paul, 
two orders of clergy were reckoned sufficient for the 
Church, priests and deacons; nor were there in the 
days of the Apostles any such distinctions as those of 
a pope, patriarchs and bishops."t And what, per- 

primitive Church, the office of bishops and priests, as well as the 
names, was the same. But in the second primitive Church, the 
names and offices began to be distinguished. Therefore the names 
presbyter and bishop were entirely of similar import, and their 
power was the same, for ^ the churches were governed by a common 
council of priests. Therefore, as there was no difference from the 
beginning, the prelates ought not to carry themselves too haughtily 
above the priests." 

* " Non invenitur in Scripturis Evangelicis aut Apostolicis aliqua 
differentia inter episcopos ct simplices sacerdotes qui appellantur 
Presbyteri, &c. Lib. 5. ad Quaest. Armenorum. He flourished in 
the fourteenth century. 

t "Quod tempore Apostoli Pauli sufficiebant ecclesiae duo ordines 
clericorum, sacerdos ct diaconus, nee fuit tempore Apostolorum dis- 
tinctio papa?, patriarcharum, episcoporum." Woodford quotes against 
him a decree, as he terms it, of C lemens Romanus, and adds, " In 
quibus verbis sicut Clemens distinguit inter presbyterum et diaco- 
num, sic inter cpiscopum et presbyterum," and prosecutes the argu- 
ment very fully. See the whole disputation in the Fasciculus Rerum 
Expet. et Fugiend., published at Cologne, in 1535, by Orthunius 
Gratius, and republished by Edward Brown, 1600, vol. i. p. 209, 
from which it is evident that Wicklif must have been a Presbyterian, 
Ilenricus de Jota also, or according to others, de Heuta, who taught 
at Vienna in 1371, and who is highly celebrated by Gerson, Chancel- 
lor of Paris, asserts, " that the reservation of causes to the popes and 
bishops vvas a matter not of divine but human appointment, for all 
priests have equally the power of the keys. Reservationem istam 
casuum jam papia et cpiscopis usitatam non divini, sed humani juris 



46 LETTERS ON" 

haps, will have more weight with you than the opin- 
ion of these reformers, as they appear to have been 
Presbyterians, even Jewel himself, when he wrote 
his Apology, does not seem to have thought so; for, 
says he, " in St. Hierome's time, there were metro- 
politans, archbishops, archdeacons, and others. But 
Christ appointed not these distinctions of orders from 
the beginning."* Here, then, is one point of very 
great importance, in which there is a striking differ- 
ence between your Church and the Apostolic Church. 
Again does your Church resemble that Church in 
respect to her ceremonies, guarding against the error 
which was pointed out by the Redeemer, when he 
said, " In vain do they worship me, teaching for doc- 
trines," in regard to my service, " the commandments 

esse : Omnes enim saccrdotes aequale jus clavium habere." Is not 
this Presbyterianism ? 

Atto, Bishop of Verceil in Italy, who, according to Ughellus, 
flourished about the middle of the tenth century, says, in his treatise 
on the judgment of bishops, published by D'Achery in the eighth 
vol. of his Spicilcgium, "the order of bishops and that of presbyters 
were not two different orders in Paul's time, but were distinguished 
afterwards." 

Francowitz, or Flaccius Illyricus, in his Catalogus Testium Veri- 
tatis, fol. 1793, tells us, that Florentinus, when speaking of the here- 
sies of Petrus de Corbaria, and John and Michael Cesanas, of the 
order of the Minorites, mentions as one of them, that " all priests, of 
whatever grade, by the institution of Christ, have equal authority, 
power and jurisdiction. Quod saccrdotes omnes, cujuscunque gradus 
existant, sunt acqualis authoritatis, potestatis et jurisdictionis insti- 
tutionc ( hristi." They lived in the fourteenth century. The copy 
of the Catalogus, from which I quote this and some of the other 
testimonies to Presbyterian principles, belonged to Archbishop Leigh- 
ton. 

Marsilius Patavinus, who lived a. d. 1324, is said, in the Catalo- 
gus Testium Vcritatis, p. 488, to have maintained this opinion in his 
treatise, entitled, Defensor Pacis, " that all bishops and priests are 
equal. Omnes episcopos ct saccrdotes esse acquales." 

* Defense of the Apology, p. 92. "Concerning this work," says 
Strype, (Annals, vol. ii. p. 41)0,) " three great princes successively, 
Queen Elizabeth, King James and King Charles, and four arch- 
bishops, were so satisfied with the truth and learning contained in 
i(, that they enjoined it to be chained up and read in all parish 
churches throughout England and Wales." 

Mockct, Archbishop Abbot's chaplain, mentions many more dis- 
tinctions among the clergy of the Church of England than Bishop 
Jewel. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 47 

of men ?" Jewel observes, " The old father S. Augus- 
tine, complaineth of the multitude of vain ceremonies, 
wherewith he even then (beginning of the fifth centu- 
ry) saw men's minds and consciences overcharged."* 
And yet, according to Hooper and Cecil, you have a 
greater number of them in the Church of England 
than were to be found either in the Jewish Church, 
or in the Christian Church in the days of Augustine. 
" Further," says the former, " to augment the ceremo- 
nies of the Churche, and bring in a new Judaisme and 
Aaronicall rites, is against this commandment, (the 
fourth). As the bishopes hath usyd the matter, there 
be more ceremonies in the Churche of Christ than 
were in the Churche of the Jewes, as it shall easily 
apere to him that will confer our Churche with the 
bookes of Moses."t And says the latter to a noble 
Italian at Rome, whom he wished to convert from 
Popery, " Yea, as for external discipline, I can assure 
you, our Church is more replenished with ecclesias- 
tical riles than was the primitive Church in five 
hundred years after Christ. Insomuch as the Church 
of England is, by the Germans, French, Scots, and 
others that call themselves reformed, thought to be 
herein corrupted, for retaining so much of the rites of 
the Church of Rome." % But if this is really the case, 
(and he could not be mistaken,) it constitutes a very 
great and serious difference between the worship of 
your Church and the Apostolic Church.§ 

* Apology for the Church of England, part 5, chap. iii. divis. 5. 

t Declaration of the ten holy commandments. 

t Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 533. 

§ We are told by A'Lasco, in his Treatise de Ordinatione Eccle- 
siarum Peregrinarum in Anglia, published a. d. 1555, and dedicated 
to Sigismund, King of Poland, that Edward the Sixth and his Coun- 
cil were anxious to accomplish a far more extensive reformation of 
the Church of England than has, ever been effected. "When I was 
called by that King," says he, " and when some laws of the country 
stood in the way, that it was not possible that the rites of public di- 
vine worship used under Popery should be immediately purged out, 
though it was what the King himself desired ; and while I was earn- 
estly standing up for the churches of the foreigners, at length it was 
his pleasure that the public rites in the English churches should he 
reformed by certain degrees, as far as it could possibly be got done for 
the laws of the kingdom. But that strangers, who were not so strict- 



48 LETTERS ON 

You restrict your clergy, in their public services, to 
forms of prayer which were never employed in the 
Apostolic Church, though they prevent your ministers 
from applying to the Spirit, as a Spirit of grace and 
supplications, to suggest intercessions to them, accord- 
ing to this part of his blessed character, (Romans viii. 
26, 27,) which they may present for their people, and 
though, as Bishop Wilkins remarks, "prayer by book 
is commonly flat and dead, and has not that life and 
vigour to engage the affections, as when it proceeds 
immediately from the soul itself; and set forms do 
especially expose people to lip service and formal- 
ity."* And he might have added, that they want 

ly obliged by the laws of the country in this matter, should have 
churches granted them, wherein they might freely perform all things 
according to apostolical doctrine and observation only, without hav- 
ing any regard to the rites of the country, that by this means it 
would come to pass that the English churches would be excited to em- 
brace apostolical purity, with the unanimous consent of all the states 
of the kingdom. 

"The king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author 
and defender of this project. For, though it was almost universally 
acceptable in the King's Council, and though the Archbishop of Can- 
terbury himself promoted the thing with all his might, yet there were 
some who took it ill, and would have showed more reluctance to it, 
had not the King given them a repulse, both by his authority and 
the reasons he gave for this design. The churches of strangers being 
accordingly allowed, upon condition, or rather with a liberty, that all 
things in them should be ordered according to the doctrine and prac- 
tice of the Apostles, the care of them, by the authority of the King 
and Council, was committed to me, and I was commanded to choose 
such colleagues for myself, as I should judge fittest for that service, 
that their names might be inserted in the King's patent. Cum ego 
quoque per regem ilium vocatus cssem," &c. 

Such is the statement of A'Lasco, whom Edward and his counsel- 
lors denominated in the patent, "homo propter intcgritatem et inno- 
centiam vita? et morum, ct Bingularem eruditionem, valde Celebris." 
He published his book about lour years ailerwards ; and his state- 
ment accords with the appointment of thirty-two commissioners by Ed- 
ward, (of whom A'Lasco was one,) to draw up the Reformatio Legum 
Ecclcs-iustii •arum. That work was stopped, in consequence of the 
death of the King, and little progress was made in the reformation of 
the Church under Elizabeth. .Many of the bishops, during the reign 
of that Princess, lamented it greatly; but it gratified the Papists, and 
is still a source of great satisfaction to them, for one of their bishops 
declared lately, that " he loved the Church of England, because she 
was the least reformed of all the Reformed Churches.^ 

* Gift of Prayer, by Bishop Wilkins, p. 9, 10. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 49 

that variety which is suited to the ever varying cir- 
cumstances both of the private Christian, and of the 
Church at large ; and that it is equally uncomfortable 
to hear the very same prayers repeated annually, for 
forty, or fifty, or sixty years, as it would be to hear 
the very same sermons repeated annually for a similar 
period. Besides the prayer-book you use, and on 
which you will suffer no alterations, as Edward the 
Sixth said in his letter to the Kentish rebels, is just 
"the old Popish service translated into English/' 
which James the First, you know, denominated at 
one time " an ill-said mass." 

In administering baptism, you make the sign of the 
cross on the forehead of the child, though it was nei- 
ther made on the forehead of the Saviour at his bap- 
tism, nor of any other individual who is mentioned in 
the New Testament, and though, as Barlow acknow- 
ledges, in his account, of the conference at Hampton 
Court, no example of it can be produced before the 
days of Tertullian, when, as is proved by the author 
of Ancient Christianity, Sir Peter King, and others, 
many gross superstitions had been introduced into the 
Church. And if you tell me that it was adopted at a 
very early period, I reply, with Bradshaw, " so are 
many other Popish traditions, (for the mystery of ini- 
quity soon began to work) ; and if on that ground we 
are to retain it, why do we not give the baptised milk 
and honey? for this was practised along with the other. 
Why do we not bring offerings for the dead? for Ter- 
tullian, the first of the fathers that ever mentioned the 
cross, doth establish these and the sign of the cross by 
one and the self-same warranty. Besides, if upon 
the fathers' tradition we use the cross, then must we 
receive and use it as they have delivered it unto us, 
that is, with opinion of virtue and efficacy, not only 
in the act of blessing ourselves, and in expelling of 
devils, but even in the consecration of the blessed 
sacrament. For the first, Tertullian is witness, saying, 
at every passage, at every setting forward, at every 
coming in and going out, at putting on of our 
clothes, shoes, &c, we stamp our forehead with the 
4 



50 LETTERS ON 

sign of the cross." * And surely, if you make the 
sign of the cross in baptism on the child's forehead, 
because the fathers did it, you are bound equally to 
make it on your own forehead, when you put on or 
off* your hat, or coat, or any part of your dress, or 
your shoes; and for the very same purpose, namely, 
to chase away devils; and I have not yet heard that 
you have come so far as this in your imitation of the 
ancient Church. Nor do you use that sign even in 
baptism as it was employed by the fathers, for, as he 
further remarks, " it is apparent that Cyprian, Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom, and others, in those times, did con- 
secrate the element (or water) therewith, and did not 
cross the child's forehead, but referred that unto the 
bishop's confirmation, so that onr crossing the in- 
fant's forehead, and not the element ofbaptism, is a 
meere novelty "\ In this respect, therefore, you differ 
both from the apostolic and the ancient Church. 

* Treatise on Worship and Ceremonies, p. 114. 

He adds, " for chasing of devils, Jerome counselleth Demetrius to 
use the cross," (Epist. ad Demetrium;) "and with often crossing 
guard thy forehead, that the destroyer of Egypt find no place in thee." 
Lactantius saith, (lib. 4, cap. 24,) " Christ's followers do by the sign 
of the cross shut out the unclean spirit." Chrysostom, on Psalm 109, 
says, "the sign of the cross guardeth the mind; it taketh revenge 
on the devil; it cureth the diseases of the soul." 

t " Neither will that place of Tertullian de Resurrectione Carnis 
prove the contrary." "The flesh," says he, "is washed, that the 
soul may be purged ; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be con- 
secrated; the flesh is signed, that the sotil may be guarded ; the flesh 
is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be by the 
spirit enlightened; the flesh doth feed on the body and blood of Christ, 
that the soul may be filled and fatted of God. In which words he, 
joining together diverse ceremonies of the Christians, doth indeed 
mention the signing of the faithful; but it may be as well referred 
to confirmation, expressed by imposition of hands, as to baptism, un- 
derstood by washing of the body, and that on better reason, for it is 
more than probable that the sign of the cross tons not yet used in bap. 
fisra, seeing Justin Martyr, in Defens. ad Anton., and Tertullian, de 
Baptismo ct de Corona Militis, do describe the form of baptism used 
in those times, and yet make no mention of the cross therein, which 
in all likelihood they would not have omitted if it had been used 
therein, especially Tertullian, who in that place spcaketh of the cross 
as used out of baptism in the ordinary blessing of themselves." 

He says, in his Treatise on Kneeling in the Sacrament, p. 94, of 
the preceding work, that " Papists themselves call the Church of 
England, for retaining this and other Popish Ceremonies, Puritan 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 51 

You lay the stipulations in baptism, not on the 
parents, who are enjoined by the Almighty to "bring 
up the children in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord," but on god-fathers and god-mothers, who 
seldom see them, in regard to which even the Epis- 
copalian clergy at Aberdeen confess, "we have no 
precept or example of it in the Holie Scripture ; yea, 
some of our learned divines affirm that it was insti- 
tuted by Pope Higinus."* 

You represent every one who is baptised as regen- 
erated, or, in the language of your Catechism, as 
" made thereby a member of Christ, the child of God, 
and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." And 
Archdeacon Wilberforce affirms, that " the seed of 
grace," which was implanted in his father at baptism, 
was preserved; while his father himself acknowledges, 
that, till he met with Doddridge's Rise and Progress 
of Religion, and it was blessed to him by God, he was 
dead in trespasses and sins. And yet you are informed 
in Scripture that Simon Magus, though baptised by 
an Apostle, whose orders surely would be valid, 
continued " in the gall of bitterness, and the bond of 
iniquity." And as Frith remarks, "if a Jew or an 
infidel (as has sometimes been the case) should say 
that he dyd beleve, and beleved not in deede, and 
upon his words were baptised in deede, (for no man 
can judge what his heart is,)"t he could not be in the 
state described in your Catechism, for it is distinctly 
stated, that while he who believeth shall be saved, 
"he who believeth not shall be damned." 

You receive the communion at an altar like the 
Papists, and not at a table like Christ and his Apos- 

Papistical," and appeals in proof of it to the Concertatio Cathol, 
Eccles. in Argurn. 

In the Almanac Spirituel, an old Waldensian Tract, published by 
Leger, in his Hist, des Eglises Vaudois, p. 65, the sign of the cross 
in baptism is condemned. " Le signe de la croix sur l'enfant a la 
poitrenc et au front." And the Churches of the Waldenses were 
" the cradle" of the Churches of the Reformation. 

* Duplies to the Answers of some Reverend Brethren concerning 
the Covenant, p. 97. 

t See his Myrrour or Looking-GIasse, wherein you may beholde 
the sacrament of Baptisme described, Works, p. 91. 



52 LETTERS ON 

ties, and the early Christians, and you take it kneeling, 
though they took it in the posture which was common 
at meals. This is certainly surprising, since as Peter 
Martyr, who was to have been one of your first pro- 
fessors of divinity, says, " Kneeling at the sacrament 
was introduced on account of transubstantiation, and 
the real presence/'* And it is still more extraordinary 
in a Protestant Church, if it be true, as is mentioned 
in the notes by Alexander de Hales, that the Pope, 
when he communicates, does it sitting, because the 
•Apostles communicated sitting. In this respect also 
you differ widely from the Apostolic Church, and are 
less scriptural in your worship than the very Pope.t 

* Per transubstantiationem et realem presentiam invecta est in 
ecclesiam. Colum. sect 21. 

t " At the least," says the author of the Re-examination of the 
Five Articles of Perth, " kneeling was left free in the days of King 
Edward the Sixth. The Papists making a stir about want of reve- 
rence to the sacrament at the second reviewing of the book of Com- 
mon Prayer, kneeling was enjoyned upon this reason that the sacra- 
ments might not be prophaned, but holden in a holy and reverential 
estimation. This was done by the directors and contrivers of the 
book, partly to pacify the Papists, partly because their judgment was 
not cleare in this point." 

*• That supper had all sitting in common together, saith Chrysos- 
tom, as he is quoted by that writer, p. 19. GEcumenius hath the 
like. This is not to eat the Lord's supper, says he. He meaneth 
that supper which Christ delivered when all his disciples were 
present. For in that supper the Lord and all his servants sat to- 
gether." 

" The two thousand soldiers," he remarks, p. 24, " who were re- 
conciled to the Emperor Mauritius about the year 590, by means 
of Gregorius, Bishop of Antioch, receaved the sacrament sitting 
upon the ground, as Evagrius reporteth." (Evag. lib. 6, cap. 13.) 

" Dr. Lindsay alledgeth the like done to the Scottish armie at Ban- 
nockbum, in the dayes of King Robert Bruce." (See his Defence, p. 
53-54.) 

"Balsamon, upon the nineteenth canon of the Concilium Trullan- 
um, saith, the devouter sort, upon Saturday at midnight, sat in the 
kirke, and did communicate. Alexander de Hales, in the second part 
of his tractate concerning the masse, sayth, the Pope communicateth 
sitting, in remembrance that the Apostles at the last supper commu- 
nicated sitting. Si quaeratur quare Dominus Papa sedendo commu- 
nicat, &c. 

"That the Waldenses sat will appear from Balthazar Lydius. And 
Luther, expounding the epistle upon St. Stephen's day, saith, Christ 
so instituted the sacrament, that in it we should sit at the sacrament. 
But all things are changed, and the idle ordinances of men art come 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 53 

^.You bow during the reading of the Gospels at the 
name Jesus, and not at the name Christ or Immanuel, 
or any of the other names of the Redeemer, or any of 
the names of the other persons of the Godhead, justi- 
fying your adoration of that particular name, which 
never appears to have received that external token of 
homage in the apostolic age, by an erroneous inter- 
pretation of Philippians, ii. 10. And yet you are 
aware that Archbishop Usher, one of your most dis- 
tinguished prelates denied that the practice could be 
founded on that passage, and "wondered at some learn- 
ed men's assertions, that it was the exposition of all 
the fathers upon it. And as the wise composers of 
the Liturgy gave no direct injunction for it there, so 
in Ireland he withstood the putting it into the canons 
in 1634."* "I think the place to the Philippians," 
says Bishop Babington, " not well understood, hath 
and doth deceive them. The place is borrowed from 
the Prophet Isaiah, and therefore, by conference, evi- 
dent that the word name signifies power, glory, hon- 

in place of divine ordinances. Zuinglius, setting down the forme of 
celebration used at Berne, Zurioke, Basile, and other neighbour 
townes, say th, sitting and harkening with silence to the word of the 
Lord, we eat and drink the sacrament of the supper. We have put 
down altars," says A'Lasco, " and use a table, because it agreeth bet- 
ter with a supper, and the Apostle hath given the title of a table to 
denominate the Lord's supper. And again, the terms supper and 
table of the Lord very familiar with the Apostle Paul, seeme to re- 
quire sitting rather standing, kneeling or passing by." 

" The Bishop of Chester," says Calderwood, in his strictures on 
the Perth Assembly, p. 19, admits that it is true Christ did adminis- 
ter the sacrament in a kind of sitting gesture, and that in the same 
gesture the Apostles did receive it." Defense, p. 248. 

" Is it said that we should kneel in this ordinance, because we 
worship God in it ? Then we should do so in praise, and when we 
swear an oath. God has a right certainly to appoint the gestures 
which he requires in every act of worship. Is it alleged that it is 
called a sacrifice, and therefore we should kneel? Upon the same 
principle, then, we should kneel when we give alms, for it too is call- 
ed a sacrifice, or when we praise," &c. 

11 Dionysius Alexandrinus," says Mr. Anderson, in his Answer to 
the Dialogue between the Curate and the Countryman, p. 57, " is the 
earliest that Dr. Cave can find, that makes mention even of standing; 
but of kneeling, not a syllable to be heard for many hundredyears after. 

* Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh on certain points, 
p. 132. 



54 LETTERS ON 

our, and authority, above all powers, glories, honours, 
and authorities; and bowing the knee signifieth sub- 
jection, submission, and obedience of all creatures to his 
beck, rule and government, for what materiall knees 
have things in heaven, hell, 8?c. ? This knew the an- 
cient father Origen, and therefore, writing on the 14th 
of the Romans, where these words be, again saith, 
Non est carnaliter hoc accipiendum. These words 
are not to be taken carnally, as though things in hea- 
ven, as the sun, moon, angels, &c. had knees or tongues, 
but that all things shall be subject to him."* And says 
Dr. Fulk, in his Reply to the Rhemists, "it is certain 
that the bowing of the knee at the sound of the name 
of Jesus, as it is used in Popery, (and it is the same in 
your Church, and among the Scottish Episcopalians,) 
is not commanded nor prophesied in this place, (Phil, 
ii.) but it pertaineth to the subjection of all creatures 
to the judgment of Christ, when not only Turks and 
Jews, which now yield no honour to Jesus, but even 
the devils themselves shall be constrained to acknow- 
lege that he is their Judge." And he adds, " Capping 
or kneeling at the name of Jesus is superstitiously 
used in Popery, in sitting and not veiling at the name 
of Christ, Emanuel, God the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, and bowing only at the name of Jesus." 
And yet such is the practice which is followed by your 
Church, though, while you bow with the knee when 
that name is mentioned, you do not confess with the 
tongue that Jesus is Lord; and in this, as well as the 
multitude of your other ceremonies, of which Cecil 
speaks, you resemble the Popish but differ very wide- 
ly from the Apostolic Church. t 

* See him on the Creed, p. 169. 

t It is plain from Bishop Burnet's Sermon before the House of 
Commons in 1G88, and his Letters, p. 46, that a number of the first 
Protestant bishops were anxious to have many of these ceremonies 
abolished, but did not succeed. And says Strype, (Annals, vol. i. p. 
162 — 164.) Parker, Grindal, Cox, Sandys and others, urged a num- 
ber of arguments to Elizabeth for laying aside altars, and using ta- 
bles in the communion, as approaching most nearly to the institution 
of Christ, but she would not listen to them. 

Bishop Pilkington, in a letter to the Earl of Leicester, (Append, 
to Strype's Parker, p. 41,) gives the following account of the reasons 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 55 

And omitting many other things on which it would 
be easy to enlarge, does the extent of your bishoprics 
correspond to that of the bishoprics in the early Church, 
even admitting that their bishops were diocesan pre- 
lates? This, you must be sensible, is a point not only 
of great, but of paramount importance ; for, if you as- 
sign to your bishops an amount of duty which it is 
impossible for them to perform, and not only twenty 
or thirty, but even a hundred times more than was 
expected from any of the primitive bishops, you an- 
nihilate completely the efficiency of their office, and 
have bishops only in name. And yet such is the case 
with almost the whole of your bishoprics. In Philip- 
pi alone, where the number of Christians could not be 
great, we are informed, (Philippians, i. 1,) that " there 
were several bishops." Bishop Burnet acknowledges 
that Cenchrea, the seaport of Corinth, formed a bish- 
opric distinct from that of Corinth, and that the little 
village of Bethany, about a mile from Jerusalem, had 
a bishop of its own.* And Fuller confesses, that a 
long time afterwards, "some of the bishops' seats in 
Palestine were such poor places as they were ashamed 
to appear in a map. For in that age bishops had their 
sees at poor and contemptible villages."! The bish- 
opric of Polycarp was so small, that he could be ac- 

why so many Popish ceremonis have been retained by the Church 
of England. " They have so long- continued," says he, " and pleased 
Poperie, which is beggerlie patched upp of al sorts of ceremonies, 
that they culd never be roted out sins, even from many professors of 
the truth." And said Bishop Parkhurst to Gualter, (Strype's An- 
nals, vol. ii. p. 186,) "Would to God once at last al the English peo- 
ple would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the 
Church of Zuric, (Presbyterian) as the most absolute pattern." But 
how much more happy would it have been for the church of England 
in the present day, if she had followed the model proposed by Hooper 
in his Treatise entitled the Declaration of Christ and his Offices. 
" It is no reproache of the dead man," said he, " but myne opinion 
unto all the world that the Scripture solely and the Apostelles' Churche 
is to be folowcd, and no man's authoritie, be he Augustine, Tertullian, 
or other cherubim or seraphim. Unto the rules and canones of Scrip- 
tures must man trust, and reforme his errors thereby, or else he shall 
not reform himself, but rather deform his consciens." 

* See his Observations on the 1st and 2d Apostolic Canons, p. 48. 

t History of the Holy War, p. 46. 



56 LETTERS ON 

quainted by name with the different individuals who 
were under his superintendence. " Let your assem- 
blies/' said Ignatius to him, " be more frequent ;" or 
as it is rendered by Archbishop Wake, " let them be 
more full; inquire after all by name; despise not the 
man-servants nor maid-servants; but let not these be 
purled up with this circumstance."* And in the 
extensive diocese of Neocsesarea, in the middle of the 
third century, there were only seventeen Christians, 
and these probably all residing in the city. In the 
time of Cyprian, Sage admits that there were only 
eight presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage, 
three of whom, on one occasion, voted for him, and 
one against him.t In the time of Cornelius, in the 
third century, there were only forty-six presbyters in 
the Church of Rome, all of whom, according to Dod- 
wel, did not preach; and even in the fourth century, 
according to Optatus, it contained little more than 
forty parishes,:]: or a considerably smaller number than 
in the Scottish Presbytery of Glasgow, who are under 
one moderator or president. Victor Uticensis says, 
that in the fifth century there were nearly as many 
bishops as there were parishes in one of the provinces 
of Africa; and Bishop Burnet allows that in the time 
of St. Augustine there were about five hundred bish- 
ops in a very small district. § And if it be a fact, as 
is stated by Dr. Hammond, on the authority of Ter- 
tullian and Justin Martyr, that the early Christians 
received the Eucharist from the hand of the bishop, 
it is evident that his charge could not be large. [| But 

* TIvx.\vri£ov <rwxya>yai ynvrQuo ctv, &c. " Where he evidently re- 
commends to him to examine, at their usual meetings, into the state 
of every individual who was under his care, and not merely, as is 
alleged by Sclater in his Original Draught of the Primitive Church, 
p. 79, " to matriculate them in a register." The latter circumstance, 
moreover, would have been much less fitted to elate the men and 
maid sen ants than the special notice which, on the former supposi- 
tion, Ignatius exhorted him to take of them at their public meetings. 

t Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, p. 348. 

t Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6, cap. 43. Optatus contra Parmen. 
lib. 2, 40. 

§ Conference, p. 348. 

|| " Sic et Tertullianus de Cor. Mil. Non de a'.iorum quara de 



PITSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 57 

while such was the extent of the primitive bishoprics, 
how different is the size of most of your dioceses! 
Calderwood remarks, that " the bishopric of Lincoln 
hath devoured many bishoprics which were in the 
time of the Saxons, and howbeit it hath been greatly 
impaired, yet there are twelve hundred and forty- 
seven parish churches in it at this day/'* " The bish- 
oprick of York/' too, he says, "hath devoured many 
lesser bishoprics next adjacent, as Cambden relateth 
in his Britannia." And the bishopric of London con- 
tains a million and a half of souls, all of whom, with 
their clergy, are placed under the oversight and spir- 
itual jurisdiction of a single individual, which is as 
great an absurdity is if there were only a single 
physician, however eminent, to watch over their 
health, and cure their diseases, or a single magistrate 
or judge to administer justice to them, in matters 
which affected their temporal interests. The same 
observation applies to many of the other bishoprics, 
the duties of which are far beyond the powers of the 
best of your prelates. And as you will not contend 
that any of them are possessed of a hundred times 
more mental or physical energy, or learning, or piety, 
than Polycarp, or Irenseus, or Cyprian, or Cornelius, 
while they have a hundred times more work, you are 
bound to admit that this also is a point fraught with 
the most injurious consequences to religion, in which 
you have departed very grievously from the more 
judicious arrangements of the early Church. 

pracsidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus, quod idem sub Trgwrwrcev 
nomine affirmat Justinus. Dissert. 3, cap. 7, par. 5, et Dissert. 4, 
cap 17, par. 14." Illud autem a Tertuliiano, &c. 

* See his English edition of his Altar of Damascus, p. 84, which 
lie afterwards enlarged and published in Latin. My friend, the late 
Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh, was in error when he said, in 
his life of Calderwood in Brewster's Encyclopedia, that the only copy 
of the English edition in existence was one which belonged to our 
mutual friend, Dr. McCrie, as there is at least another belonging to 
the University of Glasgow, from which I have taken the above quo- 
tation. It is a small octodecimo. 

The diocese of Lincoln contains still, 1 believe, one thousand and 
seventy parishes, or as many as there are in the whole of Scotland, 
and all under the superintendence of one bishop. 



58 LETTERS ON 

I have only further to remark, that in addition to 
the numerous and overwhelming duties of their spi- 
ritual function, you impose upon them others, as 
British peers, when they attend in Parliament, and 
deliberate on important political questions, which 
must secularise their minds, involve them unnecessa- 
rily in civil discussions, and alienate a considerable 
portion of that time which ought to be devoted 
entirely to their sacred vocation. And yet nothing 
can be more contrary to the injunctions of Scripture, 
which calls upon them to " give themselves wholly" 
to the latter; or to the apostolic canons, the eighth of 
which declares, " we have already decreed that a 
bishop or presbyter, or deacon, ought not to interfere 
in public administrations; but ought to employ him- 
self entirely in ecclesiastical matters. Either, there- 
fore, let him be persuaded not to do so, or let him be 
deposed."* Nothing, too, is more strongly repro- 
bated by your Reformers, though, as Cartwright re- 
marks, " if they had to exercise both offices, it is to 
be ascribed to the tyme, — because the cloudes which 
Popery had overcast our land with could not be so 
quickly put to flight."! " They know," says Hooper, 
" that "the primitive Churche had no souch bishops as 
be now a daie, as examples testine, until the time of 
Silvester the First."± " Looke upon the Apostles 
cherTelie, and upon all their successoures for the space 
of four hundred years, and then thou shalt se good 
bishoppes, and souch as diligentlie applied that pain- 
ful office of a bishope to the glorie of God, and honour 
of the realmes they dwelt in, for they applied all the 
ivitt they had unto the vocation and ministerie of the 
Churche. Our bishopes have so mouch witt, they 
can rule and serve, as they say, in boothe states of 
the Churche, and also in the civile policie, when one 

* ETio-xoToc » 7r£iT£-jTf£K, » cf;*;tcvGf, &c. Consult the notes of Zona- 
ras on this canon. It is mentioned also by Cyprian in his Treatise 
de Lapsis, p. 278, as one of the sins of his time, which had provoked 
God to send a persecution on the Church. 

t Second Reply to Whitgift, p. 30. 

t Treatise on the Commandments, p. 182. 






PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 59 

of them is more than any man is able to satisfie, let 
him do all waies his best diligens."* " They are 
otherwise occupied," says Latimer; <; some in King's 
matters, some of the Privie Councell, some are Lord's 
of the Parliament. Is this their duetie? Is this 
their office?"^ And says Jewel, after stating that 
" the bishop's charge is to preach, to minister sacra- 
ments, to order priests, to excommunicate, absolve, 
&c, you must remember, M. Harding, that all other 
privileges, (as Lords of Parliament,) passed unto the 
clergie from the Prince, and not from, God; for 
from the beginning you know it was not so. "J So 
sensible, accordingly, were the other Protestant states, 
at the time of the Reformation, of the incompatibility 
of such power with the office of the clergy, that they 
provided against it; and the only prelates of whom 
I have ever heard, who would have had leisure to 
exercise it, if it had been lawful, were these bishops 
among the Scots Episcopalians, who were ordained 
by Dr. Ross before his death, without any diocese, 
(for there was none to give them,) and merely to 
keep up the succession. "Their warmest admirers," 
says the late Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen, " have de- 
nominated them Utopian bishops; and in their farci- 
cal consecration by the Doctor and others, they were 
solemnly made the depositaries of no deposit, com- 
manded to be diligent in doing no work, assiduous 
in teaching and governing no people, and presiding 
in no church — in short, they were husbands married 
to no wives. "§ 

If this letter had not already been too far extended, 
I might notice your want of a godly discipline, which, 
as Burnet admits, is " owned in the Preface to the 
Office of Commination," and which, though you have 
been praying for it annually on Ash Wednesday since 
the days of Edward the Sixth, you have never yet 

* Treatise on the Commandments, p. 184. 
t Sermon on the Plough, fol. 12. 

t Defense of the Apology, p. 550. See, too, the Apology itself, 
part v. chap. 3, divis. 7. 

§ Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 355. 



60 LETTERS ON 

obtained. I might have adverted to the practice of 
your bishops in transferring their power of juris- 
diction to lay-chancellors, in regard to which, it is 
remarked by Bishop Bedel, that " it is one of the 
most essential parts of a bishop's duty to govern his 
flock, and to inflict spiritual censures on obstinate 
offenders, and he can no more delegate this power to 
a layman, than he can delegate a power to baptize 
and ordain."* And even Whilgift admits that the 
power of excommunication " was in the beginning 
joyntly in the bishop, dean and chapter alone;" that 
afterwards " through custom, it was appropriated to 
the bishop, and that it was solely by the authority of 
the civil lawes" that he was latterly permitted to 
devolve it on an official or vicar-general, chosen from 
the laity. t And with respect to the visitations of 
archdeacons, it is confessed by Bishop Burnet, that 
" they were an invention of the later ages, in which 
the bishops, neglecting their duty, cast a great part 
of their care upon them. Now," he adds, u their 
visitations are only for form and for fees; and they 
are a charge upon the clergy; so when this matter is 
looked into, I hope archdeacons, with many other 
burdens that lay heavy on the clergy, shall be taken 
away. "J It is unnecessary, however, to add to these 
details; and I shall only further remark, that if, 
according to your opinion, there must be a resem- 
blance in great and leading points between any 
Church in the present day and the primitive Church, 
before the former can be entitled to the name of a 
Church, and its members have any covenanted hope 

* See his Considerations for better establishing the Church of 
England. 

t Strype's Whitgift, p 93, and Appendix, p. 33. 

t History of his OwnTimcs, vol. ii p. 642. He says also, p. 636, 
" No inconvenience could follow on laying aside surplices, and regu- 
lating cathedrals, especially as to the indecent way of singing prayers, 
and of laymen reading the Litany. All bowings to the altar have at 
least an ill appearance, and are of no use ; the excluding parents 
from being sponsors in baptism, and requiring them to procure 
others, is extremely inconvenient, and makes that to be a mockery, 
rather than a solemn sponsion, on too many." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 61 

of salvation, it suggests considerations which are fitted 
to awaken very painful feelings in the ministers and 
members of the Church of England. 
I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 



LETTER IV. 

Extracts from the Oxford Tracts asserting the doctrines of Puseyite Episco- 
pacy to be the doctrines of Scripture. — A contrary opinion avowed by the 
whole of the Bishops and clergy who were zealous for the spiritual 
improvement of the Church for five hundred years before the Reforma- 
tion, by the whole of the Protestant Churches at that memorable period, 
and by eight thousand Protestant ministers, who subscribed the Articles 
of Smalkald, which declare that bishops are not superior to presbyters 
by divine right. — Improbabilily that these distinguished individuals and 
the whole Protestant Churches were wrong, and Puseyite Episcopalians 
right. 

Reverend Sir, — I have referred, in the conclusion 
of the preceding letter, to the acknowledgment which 
has been annually made by your Church for nearly 
three hundred years, of her want of " a godly disci- 
pline." And justly may she do so, for it must be 
evident to any one who reflects for a moment on the 
small number of individuals who are entrusted with 
the superintendence of her ministers and members, 
and who alone have the power to correct the errors 
and heresies of the one, and the immoralities of the 
other, that all which she possesses of this important 
privilege, so essential to the spiritual prosperity of a 
Church, is little more than the name. I admit the 
respectability of many of her bishops, but I would 
ask any candid and impartial judge, whether twenty- 
seven prelates, or rather twenty-seven lay-chancellors, 
can exercise such an oversight of seventeen thou- 
sand clergy, as to their principles and conduct, and 
about sixteen millions of laity, or at least the large 
proportion of them who belong to your communion, 
as was done by the rulers of the primitive Church 



62 LETTERS ON 

over her ministers and members, and as is indispen- 
sable to the welfare of every Church? And yet such 
is the whole amount of superintendence which is pro- 
vided in your Church for this important end, and 
which, if Episcopalian church government, as has- 
often been alleged, be far better fitted than Presby- 
terian polity for preventing schism, and promoting 
orthodoxy, and unity, and spirituality, ought to ren- 
der your Church the most sound and united and 
spiritual Church that is to be met with in Britain. 

But how does the actual state of your Church cor- 
respond with these anticipations? So far from being 
free from schism and discord, and remarkable for 
her unity, is she not torn with dissensions, which 
are spreading further and further, from day to day, 
throughout the whole of your cities and towns and 
parishes? Nor do they relate merely to externals, 
like those which divide some other Churches, but to 
the fundamental principles of religious truth and 
Scriptural Christianity. And in place of the exercise 
of a godly discipline toward those who are infusing 
into her some of the worst and most deadly principles 
of Popery, and who are attempting to overthrow her 
as a Protestant Church, not a single bishop has put 
forth his power to expel these heretics, and cut them 
off from the body whose spiritual health they are 
seriously injuring. Yes, sir, you are allowed to retain 
your professorship, though, by your own confession, 
you prostrated yourself lately in a Popish chapel at 
the elevation of the host. And Mr. Newman and 
others retain their livings, though they have been 
pleading for the mass, and recommending the resto- 
ration of auricular confession, and advocating re-union 
to the Church of Rome. What would the spirits of 
Cranmer and Latimer say of such conduct, if they 
were permitted to speak to us? And in what light 
would it have been viewed by Cecil and Walsing- 
ham, who gloried in your Church as the bulwark of 
Protestantism? But perhaps it does not arise from 
any want of fidelity on the part of your prelates, but 
from their want of power, and the utter insufficiency 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 63 

of Episcopalian church government to correct such 
an evil. How different was the course which was 
pursued a few years ago by the Church of Scotland 
towards Mr. Irving and his followers, when, after 
endeavouring in vain to reclaim them from their 
heresies, she deposed them from the ministry,* and 
arrested their errors within the pale of the establish- 
ment. Happy would it be for the Church of England 
and the cause of Protestantism if similar measures 
were adopted by your bishops; and never was there 
a time when it was more imperatively the duty of 
her pious members to labour and pray that the Lord- 
would restore to her a godly and vigorous and salu- 
tary discipline. 

But whatever may be the apparent defects and im- 
perfections in the constitution and discipline of your 
National Church, there is one thing you allege of the 
very highest importance, in which she has a decided 
advantage over Presbyterian Churches. Her clergy, 
you affirm, having derived their orders from diocesan 
bishops, in an uninterrupted series from the Apostles 
of Christ, must be considered as his ministers, and her 
ordinances as his ordinances, and her members as his 
members, children of God, and inheritors of the king- 
dom of heaven. But the ministers of these Churches 
having received their orders only from Presbyters, 
who, in your opinion, had no right to bestow them, 
cannot be regarded as invested with that sacred and 
venerable character, nor can their sacraments have 
any virtue, nor their members any covenanted title to 
salvation. And so far from acknowledging them as 
Christian Churches, you represent them as occupying 
the very same position with the temple of Samaria, 
which was not recognised by the God of Israel, and 
denounce their clergy, when they ordain others to the 
office of the ministry, as involved in the guilt, and 

* Presbyterians do not believe in the indelibility of the clerical 
character, as maintained by the Church of* Rome and the Church 
of England, but think, that if, as is stated, Acts i. 25, even an Apostle 
" fell from his office by transgression" the same thing may happen 
to an inferior minister. 



64 LETTERS ON 

likely to be subjected to the doom of Corah, Dathan 
and Abiram, who wished to extend the powers of the 
priesthood to the whole of the heads of the families 
of Israel. 

That I may not, however, appear to charge you 
with sentiments which you do not really entertain, I 
beg to appeal to the following extracts from the Ox- 
ford Tracts, to which I have reason to believe that 
you are a principal contributor. 

" It is not merely that Episcopacy is a better or 
more scriptural form than Presbyterianism, (true as 
this may be in itself,) that Episcopalians are right and 
Presbyterians are wrong, but because the Presbyte- 
rian ministers have assumed a power which was 
never intrusted to them. This is a standing condem- 
nation from which they cannot escape, except by arti- 
fices of argument, which will serve equally to protect 
the self authorised teachers of religion."* 

" Samaria has set up its rival temple among us. — 
Had not the Ten Tribes the school of the prophets, 
and has not Scotland at least the Word of God ? Yet 
what would be thought of the Jew who maintained 
that Jeroboam and his kingdom were in no guilt? 
Consider our Lord's discourse with the woman of 
Samaria: Ye worship ye know not what; we know 
what we worship. Can we conceive his making light 
of the difference between Jew and Samaritan?"! 

* The parties which are separated from and oppo- 
sed to the Church, may be arrayed into three classes: 
1. those who reject the truth; 2. those who teach a 
part, but not the whole truth ; 3. those who teach 
more than the truth; i. e. 1st, Socinians, Jews, Deists, 
Atheists ; 2d, Presbyterians, Independents, Metho- 
dists, Baptists, Quakers; 3d, Romanists, Swedenbor- 
gians, Southcotians, Irvingites. 

" Churchman, whoever thou art, that readest the 
follies and errors of the second and third classes, into 
which the pride of man's heart, and the wiles of Sa- 
tan, have beguiled so many of those who call upon 
the name of the Lord Jesus, first, give to God great 

* Oxford Tracts, No. 7, p. 2. t No. 47, p. 4. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 65 

thanks for having preserved you a member of the one 
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which teaches 
the way of God in truth, neither handling the word 
of God deceitfully like the second class, nor following 
cunningly devised fables like the third; and (with 
reference to the second and third classes, as well as 
the first,) pray that God would be pleased so to turn 
their hearts, and fetch them home to his flock, that 
they may be saved, together with his true servants, 
and be made one flock under one shepherd."* 

"Here is the difference between such persons as 
have received their commission from the bishops, and 
those who have not received it, that to the former 
Christ has promised his presence shall remain; that 
what they do on earth shall be ratified and made good 
in heaven. But to those who have not received this 
commission, our Lord hath given no such promise. 
A person not commissioned from the Bishop may use 
the words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with 
water, on earth, but there is no promise from Christ 
that such a man shall admit souls into the kingdom 
of heaven. A person not commissioned may break 
bread, pour out wine, and proceed to give the Lord's 
supper, but it can afford no comfort to any to receive 
it at his hands, because there is no warrant from 
Christ to lead communicants to suppose, that while 
he does so here on earth, they will be partakers of 
the Saviour's heavenly body and blood. And as to 
the person himself, who takes upon himself without 
warrant to minister in holy things, he is all the while 
treading in the steps ofKorah, Dathan and Jlbiram, 
whose awful punishments we read of in the Book of 
Numbers."! 

Now, on this statement, I would offer the following 
observations : 

In the first place, it is founded on the assumption, 
that an order of ministers, denominated bishops, has 
been instituted by Christ, who are not only distinct 
from, but superior to, presbyters, and to whom alone 
he has committed the powers of ordination, confirma- 

* No. 35, p. 6. t No. 35, p. 3. 



66 LETTERS ON 

tion and discipline. But this is a position, which, as 
you question my orders and those of my brethren, I 
am compelled to controvert, (and you have provoked 
the discussion,) and the utter groundlessness and fal- 
lacy of which I shall endeavour afterwards to estab- 
lish more fully. I shall remark only in the meantime, 
that such an order was not discovered in Scripture, as 
I have already showed you, by Cranmer and others 
of your leading reformers, for they admitted the va- 
lidity of Presbyterian ordination. It was not discov- 
ered by Usher, one of your greatest theologians, who 
Avas surpassed by none in his acquaintance with the 
writings of the early Christians. " I asked him also 
his judgment," says Baxter, "about the validity of 
Presbyterian ordination, ivhich he asserted, and told 
me that the king asked him, at the Isle of Wight, 
where he found in antiquity that presbyters alone 
ordained any? And that he answered, I can show 
your Majesty more, even where presbyters alone suc- 
cessively ordained bishops, and instanced in Hierome's 
words, Epist. ad Evagrium, of the presbyters of Alex- 
andria choosing and making their own bishops, from 
the days of Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius."* It 
was not discovered by Willet, whose Synopsis Papis- 
mi is said to have been approved of by the bishops J 
for he represents the vesting of the powers of ordi- 
nation, confirmation, and government exclusively in 
bishops, as mere human inventions for their aggran- 
disement. " To the ecclesiastical policie in the ad- 
vancing of the dignitie of bishops," says he, " these 
things (of human appointment) doe pertaine. First of 
all St. Hierome saith of confirmation committed only 
to bishops, — Disce hanc observationem, &c. Know 
that this observation is rather for the honour of their 
priesthood, than by the necessitie of any law" Ad- 
vers. Luciferian. 

" Secondly, The Counsell of Aquisgrane, cap. 8, 
saith, that the ordination and consecration of min- 
isters is now reserved to the chief minister only for 
authoritie sake. 

* Baxter's Life by himself, p. 206. t Acta Regia, p. 289. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 67 

"Fourthly, The jurisdiction of the Church, which, 
in time past, Hierome saith, was committed to the 
Senate or College of the Presbyters, was afterward, 
to avoyd schisme, devolved to the bishop. And of 
this senate mention is made in the Decrees, Caus. 16, 
Quaest. 1, cap. 7. As the Romanes had their senate, 
by whose counsell every matter was dispatched, so 
we have our senate, the companie of elders. 

" Fifthly, St. Ambrose saith, 1 Tim. hi., a bishop 
and a presbyter have but one ordination, for they 
are both in the priesthood. And St. Hierome saith, 
that in the Church of Alexandria, the presbyters did 
make choice of one whom they placed in a higher 
degree, and called him their bishop, like as if an armie 
should chuse a general, or the deacons should choose 
an industrious man, whom they make their archdea- 
con ; Hierome ad Evag. So it should seem that the 
very election of a bishop in those days, without any 
other circumstances, ivas his ordination"* And so 
far was Dr. Field, one of the most eminent men of 
his day, from adopting your opinion, that he says of 
the fathers, " who made all such ordinations voide as 
were made by presbyters, that it was to be under- 
stood according only to the strictness of the canons in 
use in their time, not absolutely in the nature of the 
thing; which appears in that they made all ordina- 
tions sine titulo to be voide, all ordinations of bish- 
ops ordained by fewer than three bishops with the 
Metropolitane, and all ordinations of presbyters by 
bishoppes out of their own churches, without special 
leave."t It was rejected by the ivhole of the Pro- 
testant Churches at the time of the Reformation, 
almost all of whom united in setting aside diocesan 
Episcopacy, while the few who retained it, adopted 
it, not because it was of divine institution, but from 

* Page 277. 

t Treatise on the Church, book iii. p. 158. Consult also chap. 39, 
where he proves, in opposition to Bellarmine and to Dr. Pusey, that 
those churches among the reformed, whose ministers were ordained 
only by presbyters, do not cease, on that account, "io have any min- 
isterie at <///." 



68 LETTERS ON 

considerations of expediency. Nor did they abolish 
it from necessity, as some have asserted, but from 
principle, for, as Jeremy Taylor acknowledges, they 
could easily have had bishops if they had wished for 
them. Such is the statement even of Heylin, one of 
the most bitter opponents of Presbytery that ever 
appeared, for, says he, in his answer to Burton, " if, 
by your divines, you meane the Genevian doctors, 
Calvin and Beza, Viret and Farellus, Bucan, Ursinus, 
and those others of forreine Churches whom you 
esteem the onely orthodox professors, you may affirm 
it very safely, that the derivation of Episcopal! autho- 
rity from our Saviour Christ is utterly disclaimed by 
your divines. Calvin had never else invented the 
Presbytery, nor with such violence obtruded it on all 
the Reformed Churches,- neither had Beza divided 
Episcopatum into divinum, human, and Satanicum, 
as you know he doth."* And such is the statement 
of Le Blanc, one of the professors at Sedan, who, 
though he allows that your opinion had crept into 
the Church of England when he wrote, says, that 
" the rest of the reformed, and the divines of the 
Confession of Augsburgh, agree in thinking that 
there is no difference, by divine institution, between 
bishops and presbyters; but as the names are given 
in Scripture to the same persons, so the office is the 
same."t This statement is confirmed as to the Re- 
formed Churches, not only by their several Confes- 
sions,:}: but by the important fact, which is mentioned 

* Pages 64, 65. 

t " Ceteri vero reformati, ct etiam Augustanse confessionis theologi 
communiter sentiunt nullam esse jure divino distinctionem inter 
episcopum atque presbyterum, sed ut nomina ilia in Scriptura sunt 
synonyma atque invicem permutantur ita quoque rem plane eandem 
esse ; eminentiam autem illam episcoporum supra presby teros quae a 
multis seculis in ecclesia Christiana obtinet, volunt esse tantum juris 
positivi et ecclesiastici sensimque per gradus in ecclesiam introduc- 
tam," &c. De Grad. et Distinc. Minist. Eccles. p. 36. His theses 
are generally acknowledged to be stated and illustrated with grent 
candour. 

t The Helvetic Confession says, that all ministers of the Word 
have equal power and authority, cap. 18. " Data est autem omnibus 
in ecclesia ministris una et coqualis potestas sive functio. Certe ab 
initio episcopi vcl presbytcri ecclesiam communi opera gubernarunt. 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 69 

by Caldenvood in his MS. History of the Church of 
Scotland, namely, that the second Helvetic Confession 

Nullus alteri se preetulit, aut sibi ampliorem potestatem dominiumque 
in episcopos usurpavit." 

The same is the language of the French Confession, the thirtieth 
article of which is in these words : " Credimus omnes veros pastores 
ubicunque locorum coliocati fuerunt, eadem et aequali inter se potes- 
tate esse praeditos sub unico illo capite, summoque et solo universali 
Episcopo Jesu Christo. And in their Discipline, cap. 1, art. 18, they 
reject "nornina superioritatis, quemadmodum seniorum synodi, su- 
perintendentium, et similia." 

The Order of Geneva says, sec. 2, " Primum quatuor sint ordines 
vel species ministrorum quae Dominus noster ad regimen ecclesiae 
suae ordinariam instituit, nempe pastores, turn doctores, postea seni- 
ores, quarto diaconi. Propterea si ecclesiam cupimus bene ordinatam 
et servatam in integro oportet istam observare regiminis formam." 

The Belgic Confession says, Art. 31, " Caeterum ubi sint locorum 
verbi Dei ministri eandem illi atque aequalem omnes habeant turn 
potestatem, turn autoritatem, ut qui sint aeque omnes Christi unici 
illius episcopi universalis et capitis ecclesiae ministri." 

The first article agreed upon by the National Synod at Embden, 
in the year 1571, was, " Nulla ecclesia in aliam, nullus minister in 
alium, nee senior vel diaconus in alios sive seniores, sive diaconos 
ullam exercebunt dominationem." 

The Wirtemburgh Confession says, in the chapter de Ordine, 
" Docet autem Hieronymus eundem esse episcopum et presbyterum. 
Quare manifestum est nisi presbyter instituatur in ecclesia ad minis- 
terium docendi, nee presbyteri, nee episcopi, nomen recte usurpare 
queant." The first Danish Confession, which was drawn up by Taus- 
sanus, the head of the Lutherans, and which received the sanction 
of the State in 1537, and was afterwards translated into Latin by 
Pontanus, says, " Veri episcopi sive sacerdotes, qui iidem omnes sunt, 
(true bishops or priests, who are all the same,) nihil aliud sunt quam 
verbi divini administri, nee eorum est curare ea quae ad mundi pom- 
pam vel politiam spectant. Alterutrum horum aut deserendum aut 
faciendum." And it is mentioned by Gerdesius, Hist. Evangel. Re- 
novat., vol. iii. p. 412, that the King of Denmark, as Duke of Hol- 
stein, in 1538, subscribed the Articles of Smalkald, which, as we shall 
see immediately, declare that bishops and presbyters are the same by 
divine appointment. 

And it would seem from what is mentioned by Messenius in his 
Schondia Illustrata, torn. 5, p. 54, that it was superintendents who 
were settled after the Reformation in Sweden, as well as Denmark. 
" Rex Gustavus," says he, "nihil motus, aliis Sueonum tumultibus 
jam scdatis, nuptiarum molitur celebrationem, illaque cum requireret 
Archi-Pnesulis officium, convocati regni cleri ad 24 Junii diem 
Stockholmiao mandat Primatem eligere. Quocirca 4 nominatis can- 
didatis, nimirum, M. Magno Stregnensium Episcopo; M. Laurentio 
Andres Doctore, Joanne Upsalensium Dccano, et M. Laurentio, 
ibidem ludimagistro, vota feruntur et colliguntur, pluraque ideo nactus 
competitor ultimus quod electores Lutheran! cssent plures, quam 



70 LETTERS ON 

" was allowed and subscrived not only by the Tigu- 
rines themselves, and their confederates of Berne, by 
Scaphusia, Sangallia, Rhetia, Millan, and Viemia, but 
also Geneva, Savoy, Polonia and Hungaria. In this 
Confession, superiority of ministers above ministers 
is called ane human appointment ; confirmation is 
judged to be a device of men, which the Kirk may 
want without dammage; baptisme by women or mid- 
wives condemned."* And it is confirmed by the 
famous Articles of Smalkald, which affirm expressly, 
that, " by divine right, there is no difference between 
a bishop and a pastor or presbyter, that orders com- 
municated by the latter are valid, because of divine 
right, and that the power of jurisdiction or govern- 
ment belongs to all pastors or presbyters, and has 
been unlawfully and shamefully appropriated to them- 
selves by diocesan bishops."! And we know that 
these articles were subscribed, not only by three Elec- 

Catholici, ac ejusdem ipsemet professionis foret, Archi-superintendens 
salutatur. 

" Ita electum consequitur ecclesia Upsalensis Archi-superintenden- 
tem. Nominatos quoque habuit superintendentes Lincopensis, Sca- 
rensis, atque Wexoniensis, non inaugurates. Quos propterea velut 
solennitati, regiarum etiam necessarios nuptiarum, jubet Rex Gusta- 
vus, 12. Augusti 1531, suscipere consecrationem non archielectum." 
Afterwards they assumed the name of bishops. 

* Vol. ii. p. 25. 

+ In the Article de Episcoporum Potestate et Jurisdictione, after 
quoting the words of Jerome, in his Epistle to Evagrius, and in other 
parts of his writings, the Reformers say> (Osiander's Epitome of 
Church History, torn. 6, pars 1, p. 299,) " Hie docet Hieronymus, 
distinctos gradus episcoporum et presbyterorum sive pastorum tan- 
turn humana autlioritate constitutes esse; idque res ipsa loquitur, quia 
officium et mandatum plane idem est, et sola ordinatio postea discri- 
men inter episcopos et pastores fecit. Sic enirn postea institutum 
fuit, ut unus cpiscopus ordinaret ministros verbi in plurimis ecclesiis. 

"Quia autcm jure divino nullum est discrimen inter episcopum et 
pastorem, non est dubium ordinationem idoneorum ministrorum a 
pastore in ecclesia factam jure divino ratam et probatam esse." And 
they say with regard to jurisdiction, p. 301, "Constat jurisdictionem 
illam communem excommunicandi reos manifestorum criminum per- 
tinere ad omues pastores, et earn episcopos iyrannice ad se solos ad 
qucestum suum turpitrr explendum attraxisse." And they add, p. 
302, "Cum igitur banc jurisdictionem episcopi tyrannice ad se solos 
transtulerint eaque turpitcr abusi sint — certe licet hanc furto et vi 
ablatam jurisdictionem rursus ipsis adimere et pastoribus ad quos ea 
de mandato Christi pertinet restituere," &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 71 

tors, forty-five Dukes, Marquesses, Counts, and Ba- 
rons, the Consuls and Senators of thirty-five cities, but 
by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and Fagius, and about 
eight thousand other clergymen."* If these things, 
however, are so, and if neither the founders of your 
own Protestant Church, nor the most eminent minis- 
ters of the other Protestant Churches for many years 
after the Reformation, who enjoyed so much of the 
teaching of the Spirit, and studied so successfully the 
word of God on other subjects, could discover the 
smallest evidence for diocesan Episcopacy, and pro- 
nounced it to be entirely a human institution, I would 
press it most earnestly on your serious consideration, 
whether it does not furnish at least a very strong pre- 
sumption that you are likely to be wrong when you 
maintain, in opposition to their united opinion, with 
the Church of Rome, that Presbyterian ministers can- 
not be regarded as Christian ministers, and that their 
people can have no covenanted title to salvation. 
I remain, Reverend sir, 

Yours, &c. 



LETTER V. 



Presumptive evidence that diocesan bishops have not been appointed by 
God, because the only bishops mentioned in Scripture among the stand- 
ing ministers of the Church are presbyters, and no passage can be pro- 
duced specifying the qualifications required in bishops as distinct from 
presbyters. — This inexplicable, if there was to bean order of ministers, 
denominated bishops superior to presbyters. — Presbyter, a name of higher 
honour than bishop. — JNo minister of an inferior order distinguished by 
the name of a minister of a superior order. — Deacons never called pres- 
byters, but presbyters always represented as bishops. — The powers of 
ordination and government ascribed in Scripture to presbyters. — Wick- 
liff held the principles of Presbytery, and maintained that Scripture 
gave no countenance to diocesan Episcopacy. 

Reverend Sir, — But even though I should concede 
to you, for the sake of argument, that an order of 
ministers, superior to presbyters, and denominated 

* Vincent. Place. Syntagma de Scriptis ct Scriptor. Anonymis. 



72 LETTERS ON 

bishops, is sanctioned by Scripture, it remains for you 
to show that the difference between them is so very 
great, as to authorise you to unchristianize every 
Church, the ministers of which have been ordained 
only by presbyters; and yet, so far are you from 
being able to prove this, that the contrary seems to be 
established by two important considerations. In the 
Jirst place, not only are bishops distinguished some- 
times by the name of presbyters, but presbyters are 
denominated bishops, though in one of the principal 
passages in which they are designated by that name 
in the original language, our Episcopalian translators 
have substituted the term " overseers." Thus, in the 
twentieth chapter of the Acts, we are told, that " from 
Miletus, Paul sent for the elders or presbyters of the 
Church, and said to them/' according to WicklifFs 
version, " Take ghe tent to ghou and to al the flok in 
which the hooli goost hath set ghou bischoppes to 
reule the Church of God, which he purchased with 
his blood."* And that it is presbyters who are here 
represented as bishops is admitted by the Church 
of England herself, for in the form of ordering of 

* I have already produced evidence, that Wickliff held Presby- 
terian principles with regard to the government of the Church-. 
Flaccius Illyricus, or, as is stated by Czvittinger, in his Specimen 
Hungariae Literaturae, p. 153, the celebrated Francowitz, one of 
the three Centurists of Magdeburgh, who wrote under that name, 
says, in his Catalogus Testium Veritatis, p. 493, that he taught 
" tantum duos ministrorum ordines debere esse nempe presbyteros et 
diaconos." And Dr. Allix says, p. 222, of his Remarks on the Albi- 
genses, "that even Knighton was obliged to acknowledge that one 
half, yea, the greater part of the people of England owned his doc- 
trine." 

I may further appeal to the following decisive testimony by Wai- 
singham, who flourished a. d. 1440, which puts it beyond a doubt 
that Wickliff was a Presbyterian. " Lollardi," says he, in his His- 
tory of England, p. 33!), ,l per idem tempus in errorem suum plu- 
rimos seduxcrunt, ct tantam prassumpserunt audaciam ut eorum pres~ 
byteri more pontificum novos crcarent presbyteros asserentes (ut fre- 
quenter supra retulimus) quemlibet sacerdotem tantam consecutum 
potestatcm ligandi atque solvendi, et cetera ecclesiastica ministrandi 
quantain ipse Pupa dat vel dare potest." 

" Unum audacter assero," said Wickliff, as quoted by Neal in his 
History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 3, note, "One thing I boldly assert, 
that in the primitive Church, or in the time of the Apostle Paul, two 
orders of clergy were thought sufficient, viz. priest and deacon ; and 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 73 

priests, published in 1549, she appointed this passage 
to be read to them to point out their duty. But if 
they are denominated bishops, it seems evidently to 
follow that they must be little inferior to them, or to 
speak more correctly, that they must be equal to 
them; for if you would infer the equality of the Son 
and the Spirit to the first person in the Godhead, 
because the same names are given to them which are 
applied to the Father, I would be glad to know on 
what principles you can prove that a similar equality 
must not exist between presbyters and bishops. Nor 
is it any answer to this to say, as has been often done 
by Episcopalians, that even Apostles are sometimes 
denominated presbyters; 1 Pet. v. 1; for though some 
of the ministers in the primitive Church who were of 
a superior order were called occasionally by the name 
of ministers of an inferior grade, because they could 
discharge their duties, I am not aware of any instance, 
(and I call upon you to produce one if you are able,) 
in which a minister ivho belonged to an inferior 
order ivas designated by the name of a minister 
of a higher order, to the exercise of xohose poivers 
he was completely unequal. Deacons, for instance, 
are never represented as presbyters or bishops, and 
yet presbyters are often denominated bishops. And, 

I do also say, that in the time of Paul,/«if idern presbyter atque epis- 
copus, a priest and a bishop were one and the same.'''' 

Even Nicol Burne, the Papist, translates the passage referred to in 
the text, (Acts xx. 28,) " Tak tent to zour selfis and the hail flok 
over the quhilk the Halie Ghaist hes apoyntit zou bischops to gov- 
erne the kirk of God, quhilk he hes conquesed with his blude;" p. 
107, of hi? Disputation. Miles Coverdale renders it, " Take hede, 
therefore, unto your selves, and to all the flocke among the which 
the Holy Goost hath set you to be bishoppes to fede the congregacion 
of God, which he hath purchaced thorou his oune bloude." The 
Bishops of Gaul and Germany, in their Epistle to Anastasius, quoted 
by Illyricus or Francowitz, p. 41, of his Catalogus, render it, " posuit 
episcopos;" and the same version is given by Stephens, Diodati, 
and even Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 377, book 7, or 
rather by Dr. Gauden, who wrote the last three books of that work. 
And lajfl the learned Hoornbeck, in his Notes on Usher's Reduced 
Plan of Episcopacy, p. 51, " Versio .Ethiopica pro episcopis habet 
papis. Etenim apud veteres, papa pro episcopo venit, Cypriano Papa?, 
Augustino Pape," &c. 



74 LETTERS ON 

secondly, not only is the name of bishops bestowed 
upon presbyters, but the very same qualifications 
are required from them, (Tit. i. 5 — 9,) for the dis- 
charge of their office; and I challenge you to produce 
any passage of Scripture where a single attainment, 
intellectual or moral, is demanded from a bishop 
which is not exacted from a presbyter.* Now, if a 
presbyter is designated by the name of a bishop, and 
must have all his qualifications, I would be glad to 
be informed on what ground you maintain that he is 
not equal to a bishop, for, as is proved in the notes, 
the former is even a name implying higher honour. 
Or if there be any difference, whether it can really be 
so great as to warrant you to affirm that Churches 

* Dr. Whitby observes, on Titus i. 7, " Hence, say the Greek and 
Latin commentators, it is manifest that the same person is called a 
presbyter in the 5th, and a bishop in the 7th verse." 

Hoornbeck, in his Notes on Usher, shows that the term presbyter 
implies greater honour than that of bishop, which renders it very 
strange, if the office of a bishop was intended to be superior to that 
of a presbyter, that the latter should receive the name expressive of 
greater dignity. " Neque dubium esse potest," says he, p. 47, "quin 
ab Judaeis nomen presbyterorum ad Christianos, et ex ipsorum politia 
in ecclesiam defluxerit, prout apud illos semper honoratissirni fuerunt, 
ot Tr^sr/Zwri^ci, 7r^i7 (ivri^'ji tuv lovJsuctiv, Actor, xxv. 15; 7rg£3-/2:/Tego< rcu 
Io-qxhk, Act. iv. 8; 7r£i<r{dvTi£ot rou huov, Matt. xxi. 23, et alibi. Atque 
ita apud Judasos longe dignius nomen -rgiT^vri^ov, rev Zakan, quam 
t7ri<rx.<j7rc,u, hetzen, ita perperam in voce episcopi supra presbyteros, 
gloriantur qui deprimere hos volunt infra episcopum, et coguntur 
tamen presbytcris in ipso nomine relinquere monumentum pristina 
atque viajoris dignitatis. Hesychius, U^fiurxi It ivti/uoi honorati, et 
rrg^j-uTsgij fjai^m qgovi/ucDri^os, major et prudentior. Inde senioris 
nomen in alias linguas defluxit ad significandum Dominum, Signor, 
Seigneur, Sir. De ipsis Chinensihus in prsefatione ad Atlantem Sini- 
cum Martinus Martinius inquit, quod tota apud eos honoris ratio a 
senectute petitur : nos honoris titulos a familiae dignitate aut mune- 
ris ampliludine, illi a sola senectute desumunt, quo seniorem quem- 
piam vocas, co dignior appcllatio est, qua in re tamen suos habent 
gradus." 

It is worthy of remark, that even Hooker, or Bishop Gauden, 
acknowledges that the bishops referred to in the Epistles to Timothy 
and Titus were only presbyters. " Timothy and Titus," says he, 
11 having by commission episcopal authority, were to exercise the 
same in ordaining not bishops, the Apostles themselves yet living, 
and retaining that power in their own hands, but presbyters, such as 
the Apostles at the first did create in all the Churches. Bishops by 
restraint, only James at Jerusalem excepted, were not yet in being. 11 
Eccles. Polity, book 7. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 75 

which are governed only by presbyters are not Chris- 
tian Churches, and that their members are only " mid- 
way between you and heathenism." 

You may tell me, however, that even admitting 
the equality, or rather perfect identity, of bishops and 
presbyters, there were ministers in the Church from 
the very beginning of a superior order, which was 
intended to be permanent, and that where these are 
not to be found in the present day, the Church which 
wants them cannot be considered as a Christian 
Church. But I would like to be informed among 
which of its ministers at that early period you find 
the individuals who belonged to that order. If it was 
among the Apostles and the Evangelists, Timothy 
and Titus, I deny that you are entitled to represent 
them as belonging to such an order, for I shall endea- 
vour to show you that they were extraordinary office- 
bearers, without any fixed abode or particular charge, 
who were raised up merely to found and organize the 
Church. And if I shall succeed in establishing this 
in a future part of the discussion, it will no more fol- 
low, that after they had fulfilled their commission, 
and had rested from their labours, they were to be 
succeeded by others with similar powers, than that 
the same extraordinary powers which had been vested 
by a king in special commissioners, for organizing the 
government of a particular country, were to be exer- 
cised afterwards by some of its magistrates, when the 
arrangements were completed. And if it is among 
its ordinary ministers that you find the individuals 
who were connected with that order, I will be happy 
if you will name them. Paul did not discover them 
in the Church of Ephesus, for he called upon its pres- 
byters to feed and govern, (jtoifiawsiv)* the Church of 

* See Mat. ii. 6 ; Rev. ii. 27, xii. 15, where our translators render 
the same word " rule." 

While many Episcopalians have acknowledged, that as presbyters 
arc represented as bishops in Scripture, they were the same as 
bishops, or rather the only bishops among 1 the ordinary ministers, 
Charles Leslie denied it in the following- rambling remarks, which 
Bishop Russel, it would seem, thought perfectly conclusive, for he 
has cpuotcd them in the Appendix to his Sermon on the Historical 



76 LETTERS OS 

God, over the which the Holy Ghost "had made them 
bishops." Peter did not discover them among the 

Evidence for Episcopacy, p. 49. " If our opponents will say, (because 
they have nothing left to say,) that all London, for example, was but 
one parish, and that the presbyter of every other parish was as much 
a bishop as the Bishop of London, because the words E.T/rxjTroc and 
riges-ySt/TsgGf, bishop and presbyter, are sometimes used in the same 
sense, they may as well prove that Christ was but a deacon, because 
he is called, Rom. xv. 8, Aianovoc, which we rightly translate a minis- 
ter." But upon this I remark, that the Redeemer is not called a 
deacon in that passage, though presbyters are denominated bishops 
in many parts of the New Testament ; nor could he, for he neither 
served the tables of the poor, nor did he baptise, (John iv. 2,) like the 
deacons in the Episcopalian churches, and consequently the argu- 
ment fails. Besides, the presbyters of the different parishes in Eng- 
land are never called bishops, and could not be so designated, which 
proves no less clearly the groundlessness and capriciousness of the 
observation, while the presbyters of the New Testament are distin- 
guished by that name, and the sajne qualifications are not only re- 
quired from them as from bishops, but no other bishops are ever spoken 
of among the standing ministers of the Church. " Bishop," he adds, 
" signifies an overseer, and presbyter an ancient man. or elder man; 
whence our term of alderman. And this is as good a foundation to 
prove that the Apostles were aldermen, in the city acceptation of the 
word, or that our aldermen are all bishops and apostles, as to prove 
that presbyters and bishops are all one, from the childish jingle of 
the words." In reply to which I would only observe, without using 
that severity of language which it well deserves, that we are at issue, 
not merely on the general meaning of the terms bishop and presbyter, 
but upon their meaning as applied in Scripture, not to civil, but eccle- 
siastical office-bearers; and we consider ourselves as entitled to con- 
clude, from the reasons mentioned above, that presbyters are equal 
in power to bishops, because they are called bishops, while deacons 
are equal neither to presbyters nor bishops, because they are never 
called by these names, just as presbyters are not equal to Apostles, 
because they are never represented in Scripture as Apostles. The 
cases, therefore, are evidently not in point, and the argument which 
appears to have delighted Bishop Russel, as well as his own remarks 
about Cicero and Hector, whom he makes out to be two bishops, is 
utterly useless. It would have been a little more to his purpose if 
he could have proved, by way of analogy, that the common council- 
men of London, or any other city, were called aldermen, or that the 
baillies of Edinburgh or Glasgow were called provosts, (though even 
that would not settle the question about the meaning of scriptural 
ecclesiastical terms ;) but that illustration, I presume, did not occur 
either to him or the bishop. 

With regard to his observation on the term grace, as applied now 
to dukes, which was formerly given to kings, it also is not in point, 
feeble as it is; for, as far as I know, it never was given to both in 
the same age, a king being addressed as his majesty, as soon as a 
duke began to be addressed as his grace. And with regard to the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 77 

ministers to whom he wrote his first Epistle, for the 
highest order which he mentions among them, ch. v. 1, 
is that of presbyters." Nor did John discover them 
even among the angels of the Churches of Lesser Asia, 
whose name, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, was derived 
from one of the ministers of the Jewish synagogues, 
who had no authority beyond his own congregation, 
and was but ill adapted to be the emblem of a bishop, 
who had not only authority, but the sole authority, 
over the ministers and members perhaps of a thou- 
sand synagogues. Besides, as the seven candlesticks 
which were seen by that Apostle represented not 
merely one, but the whole of the congregations of 
these seven Churches, so it is plain that the seven 
angels represented not merely seven diocesan bishops, 
but the whole of the ministers in these different 
Churches. This is plain from what is said to the 
angel of the Church of Smyrna, ch. ii. ver. 10; for 
while he is addressed in the end of that verse as if he 
were a single person, and is exhorted to "be faithful 
unto death," and is assured that he will "receive a 
crown of life," he is addressed in the first part as if 
he represented a plurality of persons; for says the 
Redeemer to him, " and the devil shall cast some of 
you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall 
have tribulation ten days." And it is evident that 
these persons cannot be the ordinary members of the 
Church, bat the ministers, otherwise the reward would 
be promised, not to the individuals who were faithful 
unto death, notwithstanding their sufferings, but to 
other individuals who did not suffer at all. And as 
the latter supposition is utterly inadmissible, it is obvi- 
ous that the angel of the Church of Smyrna must have 

term Imperator, applied to the general of a Roman army, when he 
was in command of it, and to the Roman emperor, who was chief 
captain of all the armies of the empire, and whose title always 
remained while he lived, it will be a better analogy, though not an 
argument, to fix the meaning of the scriptural term bishop, when it 
is proved from the Bible, that among the standing ministers of the 
Church, there were to be two orders of bishops — one of a higher 
grade, like the Roman emperor, and another of a lower, like the 
generals of armies or of divisions. 



78 LETTERS ON 

represented not merely one minister denominated a 
bishop, but the whole of the ministers of that early- 
Church, just as the angel whom John saw, ch. xiv. 6, 
"flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting 
Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, 
and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and 
people," did not represent only a single minister, but 
a number of ministers, who, at the period referred to, 
were to engage in that work. And the same thing is 
stated no less distinctly of the angel of the Church 
of Thyatira, who is addressed in these terms, ii. 24, 
" But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, 
(as many as have not this doctrine," &c.,) evidently 
implying that he was not a single individual, but the 
representative at least of a plurality of persons. And 
as there is not the slightest allusion to an order of 
ministers superior to presbyters, among the ordinary 
and permanent ministers of the Church, in any part 
of the New Testament, so an incontrovertible proof 
that no such order was either instituted before the 
death of John, as has often been affirmed, or was 
intended to be instituted, is furnished by the fact, that 
nothing is said of the qualifications which are required 
in the ministers of that order, to enable those who are 
to appoint and ordain them to judge whether they are 
fit for that high office. And this is the more inexpli- 
cable, on the supposition that such an order was to 
be established in the Church, as we have a particu- 
lar statement of the qualifications of presbyters or 
parochial bishops, (Tit. i. 5-9,) and even of deacons, 
(1 Tim. hi. 8-13;) while the office of diocesan bishops, 
according to Episcopalians, is incomparably more im- 
portant, inasmuch as they have the sole power of 
ordination and confirmation, and of the inspection 
and government of hundreds of congregations; and 
are far more efficient than Presbyterian ministers or 
Presbyterian Church courts for preventing schism, 
and promoting the peace and unity of the Church. I 
call upon you, then, to produce such a statement of 
the qualifications which are necessary in the indivi- 
duals who are to occupy that exalted station; and if, 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 79 

like the whole of the defenders of your ecclesiastical 
polity for the last two hundred years, you fail to do 
this, it presents a strong and unanswerable argument, 
to prove that the order of diocesan bishops has not 
been instituted, by God. 

I might show yon, in short, that as presbyters are 
the highest order of ministers next to the Apostles and 
Evangelists mentioned in the New Testament, and the 
only ministers whom it recognises as bishops, so it 
represents them as exercising the whole of those pow- 
ers which you appropriate to your prelates. While 
no instance of ordination is said to have taken place 
by any of the angels of the Asiatic Churches, whom 
you allege to have been bishops, we have incontro- 
vertible proof that it was performed by presbyters. 
The case, for example, of Paul and Barnabas, recorded 
Acts xiii. 1-3, is considered by Archbishop Wake, Dr. 
Hammond and others, as an instance of ordination ; 
and yet it was performed not only by prophets, the 
second class of extraordinary ministers, (Ephes. iv. 11,) 
but by teachers or presbyters. And even though it 
should be admitted that it was not ordination, it was 
the next thing to it, for they were set apart by prayer 
and fasting, and the imposition of hands, the usual 
exercises which accompanied ordination, to a very 
solemn work, namely, the discharge of their ministry 
among the Gentiles. And it was they who ordained 
the Evangelist Timothy, for he is exhorted by Paul, 
(1 Tim. iv. 14,) "not to neglect the gift that was in 
him," or, according to the meaning of that expression 
in a parallel passage, (Ephes. iv. 7, 8, 11,) the office 
which had been conferred upon him " with the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery." Nor does the 
word translated the presbytery denote, as has been 
affirmed, the presbyterate or office of the presbyters, 
for that unquestionably " had no hands," but, accord- 
ing to the uniform meaning of the term, Luke xxii. 66, 
Acts xxii. 5, &c., a company or assembly of presby- 
ters. Nor were they diocesan bishops as others have 
asserted, for, as Dr. Forbes, a candid Episcopalian, 
acknowledges, " the word will not admit of that inter- 



80 LETTERS ON 

pretation, unless you understand by it simple presby- 
ters; and whether the Apostle speaks of Timothy's 
ordination as a presbyter or as a bishop, it was pres- 
byters who composed the presbytery who performed 
it."* And it is not more difficult to conceive of his 
having been ordained by presbyters, though he was 
an Evangelist, than of presbyters having ordained 
Paul at Antioch, though he was an Jipostle; or of 
their having set him apart along with Barnabas, not 
merely to a temporary mission, but to the great work 
of preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles. 

If it be alleged that Paul took part in the ordination 
of Timothy, or rather that he alone ordained him, 
because he exhorts him, (2 Tim. i. 6,) to " stir up the 
gift of God which was in him by the putting on of his 
hands," and that the presbytery merely assented or 
concurred when they laid on their hands, as the pre- 
position fjista seems to signify, I remark, first, that 
there is no evidence of any other person than the pres- 
bytery having taken part in the ordination; for the 
gift to which the Apostle refers in his second Epistle 
more probably denotes that extraordinary faith which 
could remove mountains, (1 Cor. xiii. 2,) or that extra- 
ordinary fortitude which triumphed over difficulties, 
and which, like other supernatural gifts, was com- 
municated sometimes by the laying on of his hands; 
Acts xix. &c. This agrees better with the exhorta- 
tion to stir up the gift which was in him, if it be under- 
stood in that sense, than if it be taken in the other, for 
we cannot comprehend how he could " stir up" an 
office. And it agrees also better with the words of 
Paul in the following verse, where he adds, " For God 
hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and 
of love, and of a sound mind." I call upon you then 
to prove that the Apostle took any part in the ordina- 
tion of Timothy ; and if you are able to establish this, 

* After remarking that the word translated Presbytery signifies 
"Consessus Presbyterorum," he adds, "sic enim in Novo Testamen- 
to passim et apud antiquissimos scriptores ecclesiasticos usurpatur 
hoc vocabulum. Quod autem nonnulli hoc loco interpretati sunt coe- 
tum episcoporum, nisi per cpiscopos intelligas simplices presbyteros, 
violenta est interpretatio et sensus insolens," &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 81 

you will do what has not been done by any of your 
predecessors. And, 2dly, if he engaged in this trans- 
action, I challenge you to show that he did any thing 
more than as one of the presbytery. The Apostles, 
you know, acted occasionally not as extraordinary but 
as ordinary ministers. They officiated as deacons, 
when they served the tables of the poor before the 
office of deacon was instituted. And as they repre- 
sent themselves sometimes as presbyters, (1 Pet. v. 1,) 
so they seem to have acted in that character in the 
Council of Jerusalem, for they assumed no superiority 
over the presbyters, the latter having come together, 
as well as the Apostles, "to consider of the matter; 7 ' 
and when the decision was pronounced, " after no 
small dissension and disputation," it was denominated 
"the decrees," (Acts xvi. 4,) not only of the Apostles, 
but of the presbyters. Paul, then, for any thing you 
can prove to the contrary, if he had any thing to do 
with the ordination of Timothy, might do it merely 
as one of the presbytery, in which case it must be evi- 
dent that your argument fails. And you have no 
right to allege that he laid on his hands authorita- 
tively ', and the rest of the presbytery only to express 
their concurrence, because Timothy is said to have 
received his office " with (fist a) the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery," while he is represented as 
receiving another gift (2 Tim. i. 6.) "by ($«*) the 
hands of the Apostle." Msta, you must be sensible, 
frequently denotes instrumentality, as in Acts xiv. 
27, and xv. 4, where Paul and Barnabas are said to 
have declared all things that God had done " with 
them," i. e. as his instruments to accomplish them; 
and such also is the sense in which it appears to be 
taken in 1 Tim. iv. 14, intimating that the instrumen- 
tality by which Timothy received his office from the 
great King and Head of the Church was " the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery," or, as they are 
denominated by Dr. Forbes, the Consessus Presbyte- 
rorum. And no hint is given, that when they laid on 
their hands one of them did it authoritatively, and the 
others merely to express their consent, and you can- 
6 



82 LETTERS ON 

not produce a single instance where any thing like this 
was done in the age of the Apostles. I trust, then, I 
may affirm of the whole of these evasions which have 
been employed by Episcopalians to set aside the argu- 
ment from this memorable passage for Presbyterian 
ordination, that they are utterly groundless; and I 
would say to you in the words of Whitaker, one of 
the most learned of your ancient divines, which he 
addressed to Bellarmine, when he denied like you the 
validity of our orders, " this place serveth our pur- 
pose mightily, for we understand from it that Timo- 
thy had hands laid upon him by presbyters, who at 
that time governed the Church by a common coun- 
cil."* 

It would be easy to show, that agreeably to what 
is stated by that able writer, the government of the 
Church was committed to presbyters. It was not a 
diocesan bishop, but the rulers of the Church of Cor- 
inth whom Paul commanded to cast out from their 
communion the incestuous person, (1 Cor. v.) It was 
the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, of whom 
there appears to have been a number, (and who 
therefore could not be diocesan prelates, as there 
could be only one of them in the same city,) whom 
he exhorts not merely to feed, but govern, noifxavnv, 
that part of the Church of God; Acts xx. 17 — 28. 
Presbyters, as we have seen, sat in the Council of 
Jerusalem along with the Apostles, and united with 
them in pronouncing the decision, 6o yi ua.t It is of 

* Controv. 2, Quaest. 5, cap. v. p. 509. 

t The same view of the powers of presbyters is given by Bishop 
Jewel in the Defence of his Apology, p. 527. " Ye say," he observes, 
" the priests and deacons waited only upon the bishops, but sentence 
in council they might give none. This tale were true, M. Harding, 
if every your word were a gospel. But S. Luke would have told you 
far otherwise. For, speaking of the first Christian council holden in 
the Apostles' time, he saith thus, Apostoli et Seniores, &c. The 
Apostles and Elders met together, to take order touching this mat- 
ter. And again, in the conclusion, Placuit Apostolis et Senioribus, 
&c. ; it seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, together with the 
whole Church. Here you see the Apostles and Elders give their 
voice together. Nicephorus saith, Athanasius, being not a bishop, 
but one of the chief deacons of Alexandria, was not the least part of 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 83 

them that he says to the Thessalonians, (1st Thess. v. 
12, 13,) (for they are represented as ministers who 
laboured in preaching the word,) " And we beseech 
you, brethren, to know them which labour among 
you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish 
you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their 
work's sake." It is of the same class of ministers, 
and not of diocesan bishops, who seldom preach, that 
he says to the Hebrews, (Hebrews xiii. 7,) " Reinem- 
ber them which have the rule over you, which have 
spoken unto you the ivord of God; whose faith fol- 
low, considering the end of their conversation." And 
it is impossible to conceive a more explicit testimony 
to their ecclesiastical authority, than that which he 
gives in his first epistle to Timothy, (v. 17,) where he 
says, " Let the elders," or presbyters, " that rule well 
be counted worthy of double honour, especially they 
who labour in the word and doctrine." And though 
he says to the Evangelist in the nineteenth verse, 
" Against an elder" or presbyter " receive not an 
accusation, but before two or three witnesses," as I 
shall show you more fully afterwards, he could not 
intend to exclude the presbyters from judging of the 
case, or they would not have been rulers; or when 
the Evangelist judged of it along with them, to assign 
to him a power superior to theirs, or he would have 
invested him with authority superior to what was 
claimed by the very Apostles in the Synod of Jerusa- 
lem. And it can no more be inferred from what is 
mentioned in that verse, that he alone was to receive 
an accusation against a presbyter, and judge of it, 
when we connect it with what is said in the seven- 
teenth verse, than that he alone was to " give attend- 
ance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine, to preach 
the word, and be instant in season, out of season, 
reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and 
doctrine," &c. because he was enjoined by the Apos- 

the Council of Nice, (Niceph. lib. 8, cap. 15.) Tcrtullian saith, Pre- 
sident probati Scniores, &c. The judges in such ecclesiastical assem- 
blies, be the best allowed Elders, having obtained that honour not for 
money, but by the witness of their brethren," &c. 



84 LETTERS ON 

tie, (1 Tim. iv. 13, 2 Tim. iv. 2,) to attend to the per- 
formance of these duties. And though he command- 
ed him, (1 Tim. v. 22,) to "lay hands suddenly on 
no man," it is evident that it could not be the design 
of Paul to represent it as a power peculiar to Timo- 
thy, and which he was not to exercise along with the 
presbyters, since he had stated expressly in the pre- 
ceding chapter, that the Evangelist himself had been 
ordained by presbyters. Besides, every ordination 
of a bishop which was performed by Timothy, if he 
acted merely as a bishop, and made it alone, would 
have been invalid upon the principles of Episcopa- 
lians ; for, according to Bishop Beveridge on the 
second Apostolic Canon, three bishops are indispen- 
sable on ordinary occasions, and not less than two 
can do it in cases of necessity. And if Paul alone 
ordained Timothy, and did so merely as a bishop, 
Timothy's ordination, too, must have been invalid. 

If such, however, are the powers which are assign- 
ed to presbyters, it is certainly surprising that you 
should compare the conduct of Presbyterians, when 
they ordain their clergy, to that of Korah, Dathan, 
and Abiram, who assumed the powers of the priests, 
and taught even the common people to do the same, 
and insinuate so plainly that they will share in their 
punishment. I had supposed, that from your situa- 
tion as Professor of Hebrew, you could not fail to be 
acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and would 
have known that these rebels did not belong to the 
priesthood at all, the first of them being only a Le- 
vite, or an assistant of the priests, and the two others 
being of the tribe of Ben ben. And yet they per- 
formed the highest functions of the priesthood, and 
informed the congregation that they too might per- 
form them, and that the sacerdotal office was unne- 
cessary, because " they were all holy," as well as 
Moses and Aaron. And will you venture to say, 
after the statements which have been produced from 
the Sacred Scriptures, that Presbyterian ministers are 
not ministers, and that they tell the members of their 
congregations that they may preach, baptize, ordain, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 85 

and bear rule, and do every thing which is performed 
by their instructors and rulers? Such, sir 3 was the 
sin of these ancient transgressors. Will you, Mr. 
Newman, Mr. Percival, or Mr. Gladstone, say it is 
ours? It is melancholy to see such charges, which 
were wont to be heard only from the advocates of 
Popery in former times, brought forward in the mid- 
dle of the nineteenth century by the ministers and 
members of your Protestant Church against their 
Presbyterian brethren. It is difficult to speak of them 
in the terms which they deserve; and I owe it to 
myself, and to the cause which I defend, that I should 
not attempt it, but pass them over in silence. 
I remain, Reverend Sir, yours, &c. 



LETTER VI. 



Additional evidence that the principal Reformers of the Church of England 
rejected the divine right of Episcopacy, and pleaded for that form of eccle- 
siastical polity, chiefly on the ground that they considered it as better 
adapted to absolute monarchy. Testimonies against the divine right of 
Episcopacy, and acknowledging that Presbyterianism is sanctioned by 
Scripture, from the writings of Tindal, Barnes, Lambert, Cranmer, Ton- 
stall, Stokesly, Jewel, Redman, Robertson, George Cranmer, Willet, 
Bedell, and Lord Digby. 

Reverend Sir, — If you were able to prove that the 
Christian ministry is to be found no where except in 
Episcopalian churches, because they alone have pos- 
sessed it in an uninterrupted succession through dio- 
cesan bishops from the days of the Apostles, and that 
none but these bishops are able to preserve it, it would 
be exceedingly alarming to Presbyterian churches. 
Their ministers, as you allege, would be unworthy of 
the name; their services would be productive of no 
spiritual benefit; their sacraments would communi- 
cate no grace, and their members could not too soon 
renounce their fellowship, and apply for admission 



86 LETTERS ON 

into your more favoured churches. But before they 
do so, there are two important points on which you 
must give them complete satisfaction; 1st, That God 
has instituted the order of diocesan bishops to pre- 
serve the true apostolical succession, and that they 
alone can do it; and, 2dly, that that succession has 
never been broken, but exists entire in Episcopalian 
churches, whether Popish or Protestant, so as to give 
perfect validity to the acts of its ministers. I propose, 
accordingly, to examine the evidence in support of 
these positions, and if it fail as to either, we shall not 
only be prevented from joining your communion, but 
it will be impossible to see how any one can do it; 
for it will follow upon your principles, that there can 
neither be a Church, nor a Christian minister, nor 
even a single individual with a revealed or cove- 
nanted title to salvation, at present in the world. 

You will consider me perhaps as more bold than 
prudent in attempting to controvert the first of these 
positions, for Archdeacon Daubeny had said, that 
" the most famous leaders of the Presbyterians, Blon- 
del and Salmasius, had failed, and he would venture 
to predict, that no Dissenter" or Presbyterian Church- 
man, " of learning and character would now choose 
to enter the field against a Churchman of the same 
description, on the subject of Church government."* 
You will permit me, however, to place in opposition 
to the first part of his opinion respecting the success 
of these writers, that of a much more able and com- 
petent judge, the celebrated Ernesti, who, in his MS. 
Lectures on Church History, which were never pub- 
lished, but which, through the kindness of a venera- 
ble departed friend, who was one of his students, I 
have been permitted to peruse, made the following 
remarks on their two principal works: "Salmasius 
wrote an admirable book that same year upon bishops 
and presbyters, under the name of Walo Messalinus, 
in which he ably replied to Petavius. But afterwards 
another combatant made his appearance in this con- 

• Appendix to his Guide, pp. 18, 19. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 87 

troversy, who handled this argument still more elabo- 
rately, namely, David Blondel, a Dutch divine, and 
one most thoroughly conversant in these matters. 
He published his book at Amsterdam in the year 
1646, under the title of an Apology for the Opinion 
of St. Jerome respecting bishops and presbyters, and 
no where is the subject discussed with such ability. 
Hammond replied to him in four dissertations, which 
were published at London in 1651, but in these he 
has said nothing to the purpose."* And in regard 
to the latter, I shall briefly observe, that as I write 
for truth and not for victory, no consideration of a 
personal nature shall prevent me from inviting a fair, 
and full, and dispassionate inquiry into a point of 
such high and paramount importance, as you are 
disposed to represent it to the Christian Church. 

I have stated already, as a negative argument 
against the institution of "the order of diocesan bishops, 
that no account is delivered in Scripture of the quali- 
fications which are necessary to fit them for their of- 
fice, which appears to me unaccountable if their office 
was to be permanent, and not merely temporary, like 
those of Apostles and Evangelists. And I have re- 
ferred to the opinion of a number of your Reformers, 
as well as of many eminent individuals several hun- 
dreds of years before the Reformation, who united 
with the Presbyterians of the present day in declaring 
their conviction, that bishops had no superiority to 
presbyters by divine appointment, and that wherever 
it existed it was a mere human institution. But in 
addition to these, I beg to subjoin a few extracts from 
others who occupied a distinguished place among 
your martyrs and your most learned dignitaries, and 
who, after studying profoundly the Sacred Scriptures, 
have left their testimony to this great and leading 
principle of Presbyterians, that not merely the names 
of presbyters and bishops are applied indiscriminately 
to the same individuals, but that there ought to be no 

* Iluic opposuit Hammondus dissertationibus quatuor quae prodie- 
rant Londino 1651. Sed iis nil effecit, &c. 



88 LETTERS ON 

pre-eminence of the one above the other, as far as can 
be ascertained from the Word of God. 

Can any thing, for instance, express this more 
strongly than the following quotation from the works 
of Tindal, who is usually denominated the Apostle of 
your Reformation? " The Apostles," says he, "fol- 
owyng and obeying the rule, doctrine and command- 
ment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, their Master, or- 
deined in his kingdom and congregation two officers; 
one called after the Greeke worde Bishop, in English, 
an Oversear, ivhich same was called Priest after the 
Greeke, Elder in English, because of his age, discre- 
tion and sadnesse, (gravity.) for he was nigh as could 
be alway an elderly man. And this oversear did put 
his handes unto the plow of God's worde, and fed 
Christens flocke, and tended them onely without look- 
ing unto any other businesse in the world." And 
" another officer they chose, and called him Deacon 
after the Greeke, a Minister in English, to minister 
the alms of the people unto the poore and nedy."* 

"A byshop," says Barnes, "was instituted to in- 
structe and teach the cytie, and therefore he might 
have as much underneath him as hee ivere able to 
preach and teach to. And if in one place of Scrip- 
ture they be called Episcopi, in divers other places 
they be called Presbiteri."t 

"As touching priesthood," says the godly Lambert, 
"in the primitive Church, when vertue bare (as an- 
cient Doctors do deem, and Scripture, in mine opinion, 
recordeth the same) most room, there were no more 
officers in the Church of God than bishops and dea- 
cons, that, is to say, ministers, as witnesseth, beside 
Scrip tiire,f\\\\ apertly, Hierome, in his Commentaries 
upon the Epistles of Paul; whereas he saith, that 

* Practise of the Popishe Prelates, p. 345. of his Works. Consult, 
too, the section in the following- page, entitled, " By what means the 
Prelates fell from Christ." 

This view of the office of the deacons corresponds exactly with what 
is said of the end for which it was appointed, Acts, vi. and with the 
sentiments of Presbyterians, and differs from those of Episcopalians, 
who have changed also this part of the institutions of Christ. 

t Works, 213—221. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 89 

those whom we call' priests were all one, and none 
other but bishops, and the bishops none other but 
priests, men ancient both in age and learning, so near 
as they could be chosen."* I would like to know if 
this is not Presbyterianism. 

It deserves likewise to be noticed, as is mentioned 
by Neal, that even in the reign of Edward the Sixth, 
u the form of ordaining a priest and a bishop ivas 
the same, there being no express mention, in the 
words of ordination, whether it was for the one or the 
other office. And though this," says he, " has been 
altered of late years, since a distinction of the two 
orders has been so generally admitted, yet it was not 
the received doctrine of these times."! 

* Fox's Monuments, vol. ii. p. 336. 

t Hist, of the Puritans, vol. i p. 64. 

" Of these two orders only, that is to say, priests and deacons," says 
the Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, " Scripture maketh ex- 
press mention." 

" Even Tonstall and Stokesly," says Sheerwood, in his Answere to 
Downam, p. 21, "latterly writt in their letters to Cardinal Poole. S. 
Jerome, say they, as well in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, 
as in his Epistle to Evagrius, showeth that those primacyes, long 
after Christ's ascension, were made by the device of men." " And in 
the margin," he adds, " this note is set, Difference between bishops 
and priests how it came in" 

" The bishops and priests," said Cranmer, (Appendix to Burnet's 
Hist, of the Reform., vol. i. p. 223,) " were at one time, and were no two 
(kings, hut both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion." 

"They be of like beginning," said Dr. Redmayn, "and at the be- 
ginning were both one, as St. Hierome and other old authors show by 
the Scripture, wherefore one made another indifferently.'''' 

The Bishop of London, and Drs. Robertson and Edgworth, stated 
it as their opinion, that "they saw no inconvenience, though it were 
granted that in the primitive Church the priests made bishops ;" Bur- 
net, vol. i. Append, p. 225. And says Dr. Cox, who acted a conspic- 
uous part both under Edward the Sixth and Elizabeth, "Although by 
Scripture," (as S. Hierome saith,) "priests and bishops were one, and 
therefore the one not before the other ; yet bishops as they be now 
were uf'tcr priests, and therefore made of priests." Ibid. p. 224. 

I may add, that Stillingilcet makes the following candid statement 
respecting the opinion of Cranmer, and mentions the ground on which 
he concurred in consenting that Episcopacy should remain. " Tlius 
siys he, (Ircnicum, part 2, chap. 8,) "by the testimony 
chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reformation, that he 
ouik (I not Hpiscopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery of 'divine 
right, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magistrate for 
the better governing of the Church." 



90 LETTERS ON 

" But what meant M. Harding heere," says Jewel, 
" to come in with the difference betweene priests and 
bishops? Thinketh he that priests and bishops hold 
only by tradition ? Or is it so horrible an heresie, as 
hee maketh it, to say that by the Scriptures of God a 
bishop and a priest are all one ? Verely, Chrysostome 
sayth, betweene a bishop and a priest in a manner 
there is no difference. S. Hierome saith, somewhat in 
rougher sort, I heare there is one become so peevish, 
that he setteth deacons before priests that is to say, 
bishops ; whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth tts, 
that priests and bishops be all o?ie."* 

And omitting what is stated by Stillingfleet, of the 
sentiments of Whitgift, Cousins, and Bridges, it would 
appear from what is said by Mr. George Cranmer, a 
relation of the Archbishop, that the majority even of 
your most eminent clergy held Presbyterian principles, 
or were favourably disposed towards them after the 
accession of Elizabeth. " It may be remembered," 
he observes, " that at the first the greatest part of the 
learned in the land were either eagerly affected or 
favourably inclined that way. The books then writ- 
ten for the most part savoured of the disciplinary 
style : it sounded every where in pulpits, and in com- 
mon phrases of men's speech : the contrary part began 
to fear they had taken a wrong course ; many which 
impugned the discipline, (Presbyterian Church gov- 
ernment,) yet so impugned it, not as being the better 
form of government ^d\\i as not being so convenient for 

* Defense of his Apology, p. 202. 

It has been alleged, I am aware, that this account of his sentiments 
must certainly be incorrect, because he advocated warmly the cause 
of Episcopacy, in a paper about Metropolitans, which was published 
under his name, by Whitgift, after his death. This quotation how- 
ever, which is undoubtedly his, and the sentiments of which he never 
disavowed during his life, as well as other passages equally striking, 
which might easily have been added, will speak for themselves. And 
it is not a little surprising, if that paper was his, that he should be 
classed by Hooker, or rather Bishop Gauden, among those who be- 
lieved that Episcopacy was a mere human institution, (Eccles. Polity, 
book 7, p. 395,)and that both he and Whitgift should be represented 
by Willet, who lived after them, (Synopsis, p. 273,) as holding that 
opinion. 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 91 

our State, in regard of dangerous innovations there- 
by likely to grow."* And even under the reign of 
James, the adherents to Presbytery seem to have been 
very numerous among the best of the laity, for says 
Downam, "Which things, when I consider howfewe 
among the people (in comparison) do care for religion, 
and of those few how many are (I am sory to speake 
it) schismatically, i. e. presbyterially disposed, doe 
make my heart to sorow, and my bowels to yearne 
in commiseration of them."! And while it was de- 
nied by Willet, that " the distinction of bishops and 
priests is by the commandment and institution of 
Christ and his Apostles," ± it was acknowledged at a 
still later period by Bishop Bedell, one of the most 
distinguished prelates who ever adorned your Church, 
that " bishops and presbyters were precisely the 
same." When Waddesworth, accordingly, objected 
to the reformers, " Yea, but in France, Holland and 
Germany, they have no bishops, Bedell replied, First, 
what if I should defend they have ? Because a bishop 
and a presbyter are all one, (these Churches had only 
presbyters,) as S. Jerome maintains, and proves oute 
of Holy Scripture, and the use of Antiquity. Of 
which judgment, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of 
the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin ; S. Am- 
brose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, 
Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact, which point 
I have largely treated of in another place against him 
that undertook Master Alabaster's quarrel." § And 
in addition to these testimonies to Presbyterian prin- 
ciples by your martyrs and reformers, and many of 
your bishops who approved of Episcopacy on the 
ground only of expediency, I may mention the frank 
and candid confession of the gallant Lord Digby, a 
zealous royalist and friend of your Church in the days 
of Charles the First. " They," said he, tl who would 
reduce the Church to the form of government thereof 

* Letter to Hooker, February 1588, prefixed to the Ecclesiastical 
Polity. 

t Preface to his Sermon. 

t Synopsis Papismi, p. 276. § Bedell's Life, p. 453. 



92 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

in the primitive times, would be found peeking to- 
wards the Presbytery of Scotland." Which, he ob- 
serves to his relative, Sir Kenelm, a bigoted Papist, 
"for my part I believe in point of government cometh 
nearer than either yours or ours of Episcopacy to 
the first age of Christ's Church"* 

If such, however, were the sentiments of these 
illustrious individuals upon the point in question, 
and more illustrious individuals never adorned your 
Church; and if they included, as we have seen, ex- 
clusively of those who were formerly mentioned, not 
merely a few scattered dissentients from the general 
body, but your holiest martyrs during the reign of 
Henry, your most distinguished reformers during the 
reign of Edward, and " the majority of the learned" 
during the greater part at least of the reign of Eliza- 
beth, as well as WicklifT, and Huss, and the other 
venerable men who laboured zealously for the puri- 
fication of the Church for hundreds of years before 
the Reformation, two important consequences seem 
necessarily to result from it. In the first place, what- 
ever may be the principles of some of your divines in 
the present day, it is contrary to the doctrine of your 
early fathers, and of the pillars of your Church, to 
maintain that Episcopacy is of divine institution; and, 
2dly, if the arguments which have been adduced in 
later times, in support of this position, could not sat- 
isfy the minds, not only of a Cranmer and a Cox, but 
of a Jewel, and a Reynolds, and a Pilkington, and a 
Hooper, it presents a very strong and natural pre- 
sumption, that they are destitute of the force which 
you are disposed to ascribe to them. 
I am, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* See his Letter to Sir Kenelm, as quoted by Crofton on Re-ordina- 
tion, p. 18. 



93 



LETTER VII. 

The argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the different orders in the 
ministry under the Jewish dispensation, examined, and proved to be more 
favourable to Popery than to Prelacy. — As far as it establishes the latter, 
it furnishes a precedent merely for a single bishop in a nation, with far 
more limited powers than those of any modern bishop. — No resemblance 
between the powers and functions of the Jewish priests and Levites, 
and those of priests and deacons in Episcopalian Churches. — Argument 
acknowledged to be inconclusive by some of the leading defenders of 
Episcopacy 

Reverend Sir, — The first of those arguments which 
have been advanced by the advocates of diocesan 
Episcopacy in support of their principles, has been 
derived from the constitution of the Old Testament 
Church; for as there was a hierarchy under the Jew- 
ish, they contend that there ought to be one under the 
Christian dispensation; "the bishop as supreme gov- 
ernor answering to the high-priest under the law; the 
presbyters and deacons to the priests and Levites 
as subordinate ministers in it.""* Now, upon this 
strange analogy, as stated by Daubeny, and Hooker, 
and Jones, and made the basis of an argument, from 
mere imagination, for your ecclesiastical system, with- 
out any authority from Scripture, I would make 
the following remarks. 

In the first place, it is relinquished by some of the 
most enlightened defenders of Episcopacy as com- 
pletely untenable. 

" From these superior and inferior degrees among 
the priests and Levites* under Moses/' says Bishop 
Bilson, "happily may no necessarie consequent be 
drawne to force the same to bee observed in the 
Church of Christ." And after stating three reasons 
for that opinion, he adds, " Lastly, the services about 
the then sanctuarie and sacrifices, (which none might 
doe but Levites,) were of divers sorts, and therefore 
not without great regard, were there divers degrees 
established amongst them; though to serve God even 
in the least of them was honourable. Now, in the 

■ Guide to the Church, p. 34, 35. 



94 LETTERS ON 

Church of Christ, the word and sacraments committed 
to the pastors and ministers have no different services, 
and so require for the service thereof no discrepant 
offices."* And says Willet to Bellarmine, when he 
made use of this argument, " The high-priest in the 
law was a figure of Christ, who is the high-priest of 
the New Testament and chiefe shepheard, 1 Pet. v. 4 ; 
and therefore this type being fulfilled in Christ, can- 
not properly be applied to the external hierarchie of 
the Church." Besides, " it was untrue that all things 
were governed onely at the will of the high-priest, for 
the other priests also were their assistants, and did 
debate matters in counceli with them."t 

2d/y, It is never intimated in Scripture that the 
ministry under the New was to be modelled after the 
ministry of the Old Dispensation. 

If it had been intended by God that there should 
be a threefold order in the Christian ministry, corres- 
ponding to the orders in the Jewish priesthood, it 
would certainly be stated in some part of the New 
Testament, or the names of the ministers of the Jew- 
ish orders would have been given to the ministers of 
the Christian Church. Some Apostle acting in the 
character of a prelate, or some diocesan bishop would 
have been called a high-priest, some presbyter a priest, 
according to the practice of the Church of Rome and 
of your Church, and some deacon a Levite, as bap- 
tism in the opinion of some eminent commentators is 
denominated circumcision, Coloss. ii. 11—13, because 
it succeeded that ordinance. % I have never, however, 
met with any intimation of the intention of the Al- 
mighty to assimilate the ministry of the New Testa- 
ment Church to that of the Old, or with any passage 
where the names of the different orders of the latter 
are applied to the former, and if you have been more 
fortunate, I will thank you to mention it. We read, 
indeed, of a high-priest, and a great High-Priest, under 
the Gospel dispensation; but he is the great minister 

* Treatise on the Perpetuall Government of Christ's Church, p. 12, 
13. 

t Synopsis Papismi, Appendix to the Fifth General Controversie. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 95 

of the Upper Sanctuary, and not any minister of the 
Church below.* And we are told of a priesthood, a 
holy priesthood, and a royal priesthood,! and yet it 
is not composed of presbyters, according to your in- 
terpretation and that of the Church of Rome, but of 
all true believers who offer to God spiritual sacrifices. 
And though it is mentioned by Paul, (Heb. viii. 5,) 
that " the ancient priests served unto the example and 
shadow of heavenly things/' yet he does not mean 
to tell us that they were intended to be a type of the 
Christian ministry. It may be the tabernacle which 
is referred to in that passage, as in Heb. ix. 9, as the 
example and shadow; and the phrase may be trans- 
lated, " who serve (the tabernacle) the example and 
shadow of heavenly things/' as they are elsewhere 
represented as serving it, Heb. x. 10. And even 
though we should adopt another version, and render 
the clause, " who serve for the example and shadow 
of the heavenly things," it will not warrant the ana- 
logy for which Episcopalians contend ; for the hea- 
venly things are not the different orders in the Chris- 
tian ministry, but, as is elsewhere stated, (Heb. v. 1,2, 
ix. 6-12,) the ministry of the Redeemer, our great 
High-Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and the effects 
of his intercession. If not the smallest hint, then, is 
to be met with in Scripture, that it was the intention 
of God to model the ministry of the Christian Church 
after that of the Jewish, it is plain that this argument 
completely fails. And if, as is mentioned by Semon- 
ville, the Jews did not consider it " as absolutely ne- 
cessary to have recourse for ordination to the Nasci 
or Prince of the Sanhedrim, but the elders who had 
received imposition of hands had a right to commu- 
nicate it to others," £ their practice as to the mode of 

* Hub. ii. 17, iii. 1, iv. 14. See Schmidii Concord, on the word 

■• 

t 1 Pet. ii. 5-9, Rev. i. 6, &c. See Schmidius on the words tipm; 
and iipxTij/u*. 

t Les Docteurs Juifs neanrnoins remarquent, &c, torn. i. p. 470, des 
Ceremonies et Coutumes Religieuses. 

It is asserted by Bishop Gleig, (Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. p. 
109,) that " as the Jews were accustomed to a hierarchy, and the 



96 LETTERS ON 

conferring orders, and their sentiments respecting the 
powers vested in elders, resembled more nearly those 
of Presbyterians than those of the friends of diocesan 
Episcopacy. 

In the third place, if the analogy be sanctioned in 
the New Testament, and the ministry of the Christian 
is to be assimilated to that of the ancient Church, it 
will furnish an argument for the Papacy ■, and not for 
your form of ecclesiastical polity. 

You are aware that there was only a single indi- 
vidual in the highest order of the Jewish hierarchy, 
and that he acted as high-priest to the whole people 
of Israel. Several high-priests are indeed mentioned 
occasionally as living at the same time, but, as is 
remarked by Ravius, they were either those who, 
though they had held that office, were deposed by the 
Romans, and retained only the name, or the heads of 
the twenty-four courses of priests of the second order, 
who, except as the presidents of these courses, differed 
only nominally from the common priests.* And as 

Gentiles to a Pontifex Maximus, and as they saw the worship and 
discipline of the Church conducted by the three orders of apostles, 
presbyters and deacons, they could not fail to believe that all these 
orders were to be permanent, if not expressly taught the contrary by 
the inspired writers." But they would not require to be told this, if, 
as will be proved afterwards, the qualifications mentioned in Scripture 
as necessary for the apostolic office, could not be attained by others 
after the death of these who first held it. Besides it is a more natu- 
ral inference, that as the practice of ordination, the most important 
part of ecclesiastical government, was borrowed from the Jews, and 
as it was performed among them not only by their Nasci or the Pre- 
sident of the Sanhedrim, as the representative of that body, but by 
any three of their elders, they could not fail to believe, unless they 
were told the contrary, that the same thing would be done in the 
Christian Church. 

I know that Cyprian and others of the fathers argue for assimila- 
ting the orders in the Christian ministry to those in the Jewish. But 
they traced a resemblance also, as might be easily proved, between 
it and the officers of an army, and the governors of an empire; and 
latterly, when the clergy became more ambitious, they assumed the 
names of exarchs and other political dignitaries, and claimed similar 
powers. 

* " Of all these priests," says Ikenius, in his Antiquitates Hebraicae 
p. 106, "the head and chief was denominated the high-priest, and of 
these, by the law of God, there could be only one at a time, ' Qualis 
ex lege Dei eodem tempore non nisi unicus erat,' " &c. And says 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 97 

this office was held only by a single individual, so he 
acted as high-priest not only to the nation of Israel, 
as has sometimes been asserted, but to the whole 
ancient Church, whatever might be its extent. That 
Church, it is admitted, consisted indeed principally of 
a single nation ; but still it included also the people of 
the Gibeonites, and many other Gentiles, and their 
number at some times seems to have been very con- 
siderable." Nay, whatever might be the proselytes 
who should be converted to the faith of the God of 
Israel, and however distant their dwellings from the 
land of Canaan, they were to be members of a Church 
which had only a single high-priest. If we are to 
follow, therefore, the model of the Jewish hierarchy, 
we must adopt a form of ecclesiastical polity different 
from yours, and from that of all the other Protestant 

Ravius, in his MS. Lectures on that excellent compend, with which 
I was favoured by the same friend from whom I received Ernesti, 
M it is most certain that there could be only a single high-priest at a 
time; nor is it at all inconsistent with this that the writers of the 
New Testament speak of several who were co-existing at once, as in 
Luke iii. 2, John xviii. 13, of Annas and Caiaphas. It is plain from 
Matthew xxvi. 3, that it was the latter alone who was high- priest; 
but they were wont also to continue the name to such of the high- 
priests as had been deprived of that dignity by the Romans, which 
was the case with Annus, or Annanus, who had been degraded from 
the honour by Valerius Gratus, of whom it is recorded by Josephus, 
Antiq. lib. 18, cap. 2, sec. 2, that after he had been sent by Tiberius 
into Judea, he changed the high-priests almost every year. Besides 
these, there are sometimes included among the high-priests those 
who, in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, are denominated the chiefs or heads 
of the priests, as is evident from Acts v. 24, where they are called 
d£%i.ptx, while the high-priest receives the name only of itptus. Pon- 
tine, in maximum non nisi unicum fuisse certissimum est," &c. 
too, Carpzovius, p. 99 of his Apparatus Antiquitatum, who says, 
"Ea tempestate crebra Pontificatus translatio, et mercatura, quam 
in conferenda hac dignitate agebant Presides Syriae, plures efficeret 
Ap^/e/ig/f, unum officio, cteteros nomine gaudentes." And examine 
I»^. Mill's Prolegomena, Nos. 1105 and 1184. 

The Bagan, it is well known, was only the substitute of the high- 
priest. There was never more than one of them at a time, and he 
•wmmonlv officiated only when the high-priest was prevented by ill- 
ness or impurity from discharging his duty. The account given in 
the Jerusalem Talmud, of the lour trifling services in which he acted 
for the high-priest, is altogether fanciful. 

* Esther viii. 17, Acts ii. 5-10. Moses jEgyptius in Assurebiah, 
Derek xiii. fol. 137. 



98 LETTERS ON 

Episcopal Churches, whose bishops must be laid aside, 
and though in some respects similar, different even 
from Popery, and from every other form of ecclesias- 
tical government which has been witnessed by the 
world. We would assuredly have a bishop, but there 
would not be another on the face of the earth ; and 
all the cardinals would be dismissed, all the metropo- 
litans would be discarded, and all the vicars-apostolic, 
with a single exception, would be done away; for 
though the high-priest had a deputy, he had no more 
than one; — and upon that single Supreme Universal 
Pontiff would devolve the performance of every act 
of confirmation, ordination and jurisdiction, not only 
in a particular country, such as England, or France, 
or Russia, or China, supposing it to be evangelized, 
but throughout the whole Catholic Church. Such, 
sir, is the tendency of this boasted analogy between 
the polity of the Christian and the Old Testament 
Churches, — an analogy, I confess, which, if you were 
able to establish it, would be completely subversive 
of Presbyterian purity, but which would be equally 
fatal to Episcopal pre-eminence, and even to Popish 
supremacy, and which would introduce a system not 
only impracticable in itself, but in a great measure 
dissimilar to every other government which has ex- 
isted in the Church. 

Such, accordingly, is the light in which it has been 
viewed by the Papists, who have derived from it, they 
imagine, an irresistible argument for a universal bishop. 
" In the synagogue of the Jews," said Costernus, the 
Jesuit, " in which, as in its first lineaments, the majesty 
of the Catholic Church was shadowed forth, there was 
only one Jiaron with his posterity, who was set over 
the sacred and spiritual concerns of the people, and 
that not merely as a teacher, or superintendent of cere- 
monies, but as a true prince, with power and autho- 
rity "* And said the Jesuits of Posnania, " We may 
derive from the Old Testament no feeble argument for 

* " In Judaeorum nempe synagoga, in qua tanquam primis linea- 
mentis majestas Ecclesiae Catholicae adumbrata fuit, &c. Enchir- 
idion Controversiarum, p. 123. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 99 

the successor of St. Peter, for as there was under that 
dispensation only one supreme pontiff in succession, 
first Aaron, then Eleazar, and then others, why ought 
there not to be a successor to the high-priest of the New 
Testament, St. Peter?"* And if they could prove 
that it would be possible for any individual, assisted 
by a deputy in case of indisposition, to discharge that 
office, and that the polity of the Old was appointed to 
be retained under the New Dispensation, their reason- 
ing would be unanswerable. And such, too, is the 
light it was regarded in, not only by the Puritans,t but 
even by Stillingfleet, who candidly acknowledges, that 
" those who would argue from Aaron's power, must 
either bring too little or too much from thence; — too 
little, if we consider his office was typical and cere- 
monial, and as high -priest, had more immediate re- 
spect to God than men, Heb. v. 1, and therefore 
Eleazar was appointed over the several families dur- 
ing Aaron's lifetime, and under Eleazar, his son Phine- 
has; — too much, if a necessity be urged for the con- 
tinuance of the same authority in the Church of God, 
which is the argument of the Papists, deriving the 
Pope's supremacy from thence. "% 

And, in short, I would remark, that though you 
could obviate these difficulties, and establish this 
analogy, it would furnish you at most with the mere 
shadow of an argument, and scarcely even with that 
in favour of Episcopacy. 

As there was only one high -priest for the whole 
land of Israel, all that you could deduce from it would 
be merely that there ought to be one diocesan bishop 
in every national Church. Nay, this single high- 
priest was invested with his office by the inferior 

' Disputationes, p. 163-164. 

t Nradshaw's English Puritanism, p. 40, of his Treatises on Wor- 
Bbip and Ceremonies. 

I Irenicum,p. 174. Carpzovius, who was a Lutheran superintendent, 
s:iys p. 66 of his Apparatus, "Scripture is ignorant of this threefold 
typical comparison between the orders of the Old and of the New Dis- 
pensation, for which the author (Goodwin, in his Moses and Aaron) 
contends, and which has been the fruitful source of the errors of the 
Papists. Triplicem autem illam quam auctor in medium attulit," &c. 



100 LETTERS ON 

priests,* and latterly by the Sanhedrim ;t from which 
it would evidently follow, that not only ought presby- 
ters, but even the bishops who presided over every 
country, to be ordained by presbyters. And it does 
not appear from Scripture that the power of jurisdic- 
tion was vested in him exclusively, but he exercised 
it along with the other priests.^ And it is observed 
by Ikenius, that after the return from the Captivity, 
even when he was president of the Sanhedrim, he 
was subject to that court,§and was occasionally judged 

* If it be alleged that he might perhaps be consecrated by the Sagan, 
who probably would be anointed and made nearly equal to tiie high- 
priest, upon his being raised to that dignity, it is remarked byRavius, 
in his Lectures on Ikenius, that " the office of Sagan, was introduced 
only during the later and more corrupt times of the Jewish State. 
Patet baud obscure originem muneris sequiori aevo deberi." And it 
is stated by Carpzovius, that he had no unction as Sagan besides what 
he possessed as a common priest. 

t '* The installing the high-priest into his office," says Dr. Light- 
foot, vol. i. p. 905, '' was by the Sanhedrim, who anointed him, or 
when the oil failed, (as there was none under the second Temple,) 
clothed him with the high-priestly garments." And says Ikenius, p. 
110, " The high-priest was invested with his office by the great Sanhe- 
drim. Pontifex autem M. a Synedrio M. constituebatur." 

t The superiority of the sons of Aaron to the different families of 
the Levites, which is mentioned by Hooker, p. 382, will not prove the 
contrary, for his sons were only priests of the second order. Nor can 
it be inferred, as he imagines, from the nomination of Amariah, the 
priest, to be chief over the judges for the cause of the Lord in Jerusa- 
lem, 2 Chron. xix. 11 ; for as Bishop Patrick, in his exposition of the 
passage, and Carpzovius, in his Antiquities, p. 551, observe, he was 
only the president or moderator of the assembly of priests who were 
to judge of such matters. Nor can it be deduced from what is asserted 
by Josephus, when he says, " Priests worship God continually, and 
the eldest of the stock are governors over the rest. He doth sacrifice 
unto God before others; lie hath care of the laws, judgeth of contro- 
versies, correcteth offenders ; and whosoever obeyeth him not is con- 
vict of impiety against God." In the first place, even allowing that 
he speaks of the high-priest, and not of the eldest priest of each of t'.e 
families, or of the chief priests of the twenty-four courses, (and the 
latter seems to be more probable,) the authority which he ascribes to 
him might be possessed by him merely as president of the Ecclesiasti- 
cal Sanhedrim. And, 2(//y, lie does not represent that authority as 
bestowed upon him by God, but says merely that it was possessed by 
the priests of his day. 

§ " Plerumque etiam," says he, p. 117, (perhaps in the first part of 
this remark he is not altogether accurate,) "licet non semper in Syne- 
drio praesidebat, ceterum tamen huic collegio subjectus erat, et ab illo 
judicabatur." Ravius mentions an instance of this in the case of 
Simon the Just. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 101 

by it ; and consequently the bishop would be entitled 
only to preside in an assembly of his presbyters, and, 
like the high-priest of the Jews, would be subject to 
their authority. 

And as he would have none of those prerogatives 
which you claim for your bishops, so there was a 
variety of privileges which belonged to the high-priest 
that could not be enjoyed by such a minister under 
the Gospel dispensation. None but the high-priest 
was permitted to enter into the presence of God, once 
a year, in the Holy of Holies, and intercede for the for- 
giveness of the sins of the people. But you will scarcely, 
I presume, appropriate such a privilege to any bishop 
in the present day. He alone applied by Urim and 
Thummim for supernatural direction in cases of emer- 
gency. But it is no longer the prerogative of any 
minister, whatever may be his rank, to obtain such 
counsel in a similar way, when a nation or a church 
is encompassed by difficulties. He was distinguished 
from the priests of an inferior order by a more copious 
unction. But there is not the smallest difference, as 
far as I know, in the imposition of hands on the head 
of a bishop, from what takes place when they are laid 
on the head of a presbyter. And though, according 
to Archbishop Potter, " the proportion of tithes allotted 
to the high-priest was equal to what three or four 
thousand Levites lived upon,"* you will scarcely, I 
suspect, obtain for a bishop, either in your own Na- 
tional Church or in any other, an income equal to that 
of three or four thousand of your inferior clergy. And 
yet, if the Christian ministry is to be modelled after 
the ministry of the ancient Church, you are bound to 
maintain the resemblance in this, as well as other im- 
portant particulars. In every point of view, there- 
for..', the analogy fails, and scarcely affords even the 
shadow of an argument for diocesan Episcopacy. 

It would be easy to prove, that as there is a striking 
dissimilarity between the high-priest of the Jews and 
the bishops of your Church, so the same remark holds 

* Discourses of Church Government, p. 425. 



102 LETTERS ON 

true respecting their priests and your presbyters, and 
their Levites and your deacons. Four thousand of 
the Levites were appointed as porters to guard the 
gates and passages into the Temple, after they ceased 
to be required to carry the tabernacle and its utensils; 
1 Chron. ix. 17, chap, xxiii. 4, 5. Are any of your 
deacons employed in this way about your churches or 
cathedrals? And four thousand were appointed to 
be singers, and six thousand to be officers and judges. 
Are occupations like these assigned to any part of that 
order of your ministers? Besides, as Junius remarks, 
" as the wants of the poor and the afflicted were pro- 
vided for in a different way by the law of God than 
by the office of the Levites, it is impossible that dea- 
cons" (whose office was instituted to attend to the 
temporal wants of the poor, and not, as among Epis- 
copalians, to preach and baptize,) " can answer to the 
Levites of the former dispensation. And as ecclesias- 
tical government was committed by the law to an 
assembly of priests, and not merely to one high- 
priest/'* it is obvious that your presbyters do not 
correspond to their priests. 

I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER VIII. 

The argument of Dr. Brett and Bishop Gleig for diocesan Episcopacy from 
the different orders in the ministry, during our Lord's ministry, inconclu- 
sive. — The Old Testament Church had not then ceased to exist, nor was 
the New Testament Church established. — Their account of the ministry 
which was instituted at that time not supported by Scripture, contrary to 
the representations of it given by the fathers, and so far as it furnishes a 
pattern of the Gospel ministry, would warrant the appointment of a single 
bishopover the Universal Church. — Archbishop Potter's hypothesis equal- 
ly unsatisfactory, and would lead to a similar conclusion. 

Reverend Sir, — The next argument in support of 
your ecclesiastical polity is derived from the alleged 

* " Diaconiae usus non fuit in Veteri Testamento quia rebus pau- 
perum et afflictorum alia via lex Dei prospexerat," &c. Consult him de 
Cler., cap. 14, note 13 and 11. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 103 

gradation of orders which existed in the Church dur- 
ing the ministry of the Saviour. Your principal writers 
state it variously, each of them distrusting it in the 
particular form in which it had been proposed by 
others. And they had good reason to do so, for in 
the three different forms in which it has been presented 
successively, I shall endeavour to show that it is 
equally inconclusive. 

The first of them which I shall notice is that by Dr. 
Brett, who observes, that " there were three orders of 
ministers in the Christian Church while Christ was on 
earth ; that is, himself, the head and chief minister or 
bishop ; the twelve Apostles, who were next unto him, 
answering to the priests or second order; and then 
the seventy disciples, as an order below the Apostles, 
and answering to the deacons."* And says the late 
Bishop Gleig, in an article which he wrote in the Anti- 
Jacobin Review, " During the time of our Saviour's 
sojourning upon earth, he was himself the supreme 
governor of his little flock, and had under him two 
distinct orders of ministers, the twelve and the seventy. 
This was exactly according to the model of the Jew- 
ish Church, and could not fail to be considered by the 
Apostles as the model after which they were to frame 
the Church of Christ. "i Now upon this I would 
remark, 

1. That none of the characters which are assigned 
by these writers to our Lord, his apostles and disciples, 
are ascribed to them in Scripture. 

It is easy, I am sensible, for an ingenious mind to 
trace a resemblance between the Redeemer, the Apos- 
tles and the seventy disciples, and the hierarchy under 
the Old, and diocesan Episcopacy under the New Dis- 
pensation ; but none of these characters are ever attri- 
buted to them, nor is there the slightest intimation 
that the alleged gradation which existed at that time 
in the ministry of the Church was intended to be the 
model of the Christian ministry. It is a remarkable 
fact which overturns this hypothesis, that our Lord is 

* Divine Right of Episcopacy, p. 17, sect. 8. 
t Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. p. 110. 



104 LETTERS ON 

never represented as a bishop while he sojourned upon 
earth, and that the only instance in which he was 
distinguished by that name, (and it is applied to him 
figuratively,) was after his ascension to heaven* 
Nor did he perform any of the peculiar functions of a 
bishop. He preached the word; but this is done by 
presbyters, and very seldom by bishops, who, if, ac- 
cording to this argument, they are appointed to resem- 
ble him in regard to their power, bear little resem- 
blance of him in the diligent performance of this 
important duty. He not only did not baptize, (John 
iv. 3,) but did not confirm those who were baptized 
by his disciples, for the only individuals on whom he 
laid his hands and blessed them, except such as were 
the objects of his miraculous power, were little chil- 
dren, whom he took up into his arms. He never exer- 
cised any ecclesiastical discipline ; and though he 
instituted ordinances, and gave their commission to 
the Apostles, and afterwards to the seventy, yet it was 
not as a bishop, but as the head of his Church — send- 
ing them forth as his Father sent himself, or as it is 
elsewhere expressed, (Heb. iv.) as the Son of God 
who was "over his house," and distinct from it, 
and who had a right to appoint its ministers and insti- 
tutions. And as such was the character in which he 
sent forth his Apostles while he was with them on 
earth, and in which he renewed their commission after 
he rose from the dead, so it was in it also, and not as 
a diocesan bishop, that he gave his commission to 
Paul, (Acts ix., Gal. i. 1,) to the office of an Apostle 
after he ascended to heaven. Nor are the Apostles 
represented as corresponding to priests during the life 
of their Master, or performing any of the peculiar 
duties of presbyters, for they neither administered the 
Eucharist, nor took part with him in any act of eccle- 
siastical discipline. And the seventy are never com- 
pared to deacons; and though they preached the word, 
it was no part of their duty to take charge of the poor, 
which was the principal, if not the only end for which 
that office was instituted in the primitive Church; 

* 1 Peter ii. 25. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 105 

Acts vi. It is plain, therefore, that the argument 
founded on this alleged imaginary resemblance be- 
tween our Lord the King and Head of his Church, 
and a diocesan bishop, which is revolting to the feel- 
ings of a pious mind, and between the Apostles and 
presbyters, and the seventy disciples and deacons, is 
utterly worthless; for no such resemblance is men- 
tioned in Scripture, nor are such characters ascribed 
to them, nor are they represented as intended to fur- 
nish a model of the future ministry of the New Tes- 
tament Church. 

The futility of this reasoning will further appear, 
when it is considered that the Old Testament Church 
had not then ceased to exist, nor was the New Testa- 
ment Church established till after the resurrection of 
the Redeemer. 

The truth of this observation is so candidly acknow- 
ledged and so clearly demonstrated by a zealous Epis- 
copalian of a former age, that it is unnecessary to 
trouble you with any additional proof of it. " But 
how can this prove a solid advantage to him," says 
Bishop Sage of Principal Rule, " so long as it is im- 
possible for him to make it appear so much as prob- 
able, that S. Cyprian believed the LXX as making a 
distinct college from that of the XII, to have had any 
standing office in the Christian Church, in ivhich 
they were to have a constant line of successors ? No 
intimation, no not the slenderist insinuation of such 
a belief in any of his writings. On the contrary, it is 
to be presumed that one of his abilities and diligence 
in searching the evangelical records could hardly have 
missed to observe that ivhich is so obviously observ- 
able in them, I mean that the Christian Church ivas 
not, could not be founded till our Lord was risen, 
seeing it was to be founded on his Resurrection. Our 
martyr (as appears from his reasonings on divers 
occasions,) seems very well to have known, and very 
distinctly to have observed, that the Apostles them- 
selves got not their commission to be governors of 
the Christian Church till after the Resurrection. 
And no wonder, for this their commission is most ob- 



106 LETTERS ON 

servably recorded, John xx. 21,22,23, — no such thing 
any where recorded concerning the LXX. Nothing 
more certain than that commission, which is recorded 
Luke x. did constitute them only temporary mis- 
sioners, and that for an errand which could not possi- 
bly be more than temporary. That commission con- 
tains in its own bosom clear evidences that it did not 
install them in any standing office at all, much less 
in any standing office in the Christian Church, 
ivhich was not yet in being when they got it. Could 
the commission which is recorded Luke x. any more 
constitute the LXX standing officers of the Christian 
Church, than the like commission, recorded Matt. x. 
could constitute the XII such standing officers? But 
it is manifest that the commission recorded Matt. x. 
did not constitute the XII governors of the Christian 
Church, otherwise what need of a new commission 
to that purpose after the Resurrection? Presumable 
therefore it is that S. Cyprian did not at all believe 
that the LXX had any successors, office-bearers in 
the Christian Church, seeing it is so observable that 
they themselves received no commission to be such 
office-beraers."* But if such be the case, it must be 
absurd in the extreme to talk of the Apostles as suc- 
ceeding our Lord, and of the presbyters as succeeding 
the Apostles, and of the deacons as succeeding the 
seventy disciples in the administration of a Church 
which was not. then in existence ; and the absurdity 
must be increased, if the seventy had only a tempo- 
rary commission even during the ministry of the Re- 
deemer. 

In the third place, the illustrations of this resem- 
blance which are given by the fathers, whose authori- 
ty is so highly respected by Episcopalians on other 
subjects, and especially on the constitution of the 
Christian Church, are in direct opposition to the hy- 
pothesis of these writers, 

It is remarked by Junius, that the fathers never re- 
present the Christian ministry as modelled after that 

* Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, p. 235. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 107 

of the Church in the days of the Saviour, in conse- 
quence of a divine command, but merely because the 
Church, of its own accord, had resolved to do so. 
"How then/' says he, "you will ask, did they affirm 
that the latter succeeded the former? By human 
appointment, and not by any divine institution, — by 
analogy and imitation, and not from any particular 
obligation which was binding on the Church."* And 
as such is the way in which they represent the minis- 
try in the Christian Church as succeeding the ministry 
in the days of our Lord, so it deserves to be noticed 
particularly, that in illustrating the succession they 
leave him entirely out of the parallel, and never inti- 
mate that he corresponded to the bishops, the Apos- 
tles to the priests or presbyters, and the seventy to the 
deacons, but assign to the Apostles during the life of 
Christ the place of bishops, and to the seventy that of 
presbyters. Such, as is acknowledged by Downam, 
was the opinion of Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, and 
Augustine ; for, says he, " with this distinction of 
Anacletus those unsuspected fathers agree, who hold 
that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by 
Christ, when he appointed twelve Apostles, whose 
successors are the bishops, and the threescore and 
twelve disciples, whom the presbyters succeed."! 
And again he observes, that "it is the judgment of 
many of the fathers, who holde that our Saviour 
Christ, in ordayning his twelve Apostles, and his seav- 
enty-two disciples, both which sorts he sent to preach 
the Gospell, instituted the two degrees of the ministe- 
rie, bishops answering to the high-priest, and presby- 
ters answerable to the priests."^ And such also was 
the opinion of Chrysostom,§ Bede,|| and many others. 

* Quomodo ergo inquies dixcruntlios ill i s succcdcre, &c. de Cleric, 
cap. 14, not. 15. 

t Defence of his Sermon, booke iii. p. 32. 

X Booke iv. p. 43. His assertion, indeed, is opposed to that of Ju- 
nius ; hut it will he found, upon turning to the fathers referred to, that 
the latter is in the right. 

§ See his Homily de Prodit. Judae. 

|| Consult him upon Luke, lib. iii. cap. 42. 

I am aware that a different view has been given by a few of the 



108 LETTERS ON 

If we attach any weight, then, to the opinion of the 
fathers, as stated even by Episcopalians, it is plain 
that the Redeemer cannot be considered as occupying 
the place merely of a diocesan bishop. 

And I would observe, in the last place, that if he 
were only a bishop, so far as it furnished an argu- 
ment for an order superior to priests and deacons in 
the Christian ministry, it would prove by far too 
much. It would demonstrate, indeed, that there ought 
to be such an order, but it would be an order which 
could include only a single individual, and on that 
individual would devolve not only the duties of ordi- 
nation and confirmation, but of jurisdiction and dis- 
cipline throughout the universal Church. But as an 
argument which leads to such obvious absurdities 
contains within itself its own refutation, it must be 
upon very different grounds that you will maintain 
the cause of diocesan Episcopacy, and persuade us to 
embrace your favourite doctrine, that where there is 
no bishop there can be no Church. 

It is alleged, however, by Archbishop Potter, that 
this argument may be proposed in a different way, 

fathers of the persons represented by the seventy, who make them 
correspond to the Chorepiscopi, of whom it is said by Balsamon, upon 
the 14th canon of the Council of Neocesarea, that "they had privi- 
leges superior to those of presbyters, 7r?.aovct icxi tauto. 7r^ovojuid sraga 
tcvc U^cv; i^ovTic" and by Beveridge, in his notes on the 13th canon 
of the Council of Ancyra, Bingham in his Antiquities, vol. i. p. 173, 
and Hammond contra Blondel, Dissert, iii. cap. 8. that they were of 
the Episcopal order, but ordained only by a single bishop, and subject 
to the bishop of the city in whose diocese they resided. Such is the 
account of the seventy, which is delivered by the Council of Neoces- 
area, in the canon which I have now quoted; for they tell us that 
'< the Chorepiscopi," or country bishops, " were a type, 1 " or exhibited 
a resemblance of the seventy, " It S\ Xee^&rio-KOTroi eta [ji.iv uc tv7tov t&v 
e^efc^jixovT*." And such was the opinion of Balsamon, Zonaras, Aris- 
tenus, and Simeon Logothetcs, as appears from their annotations upon 
that canon. The last of these interpretations, indeed, contradicts the 
first, and shows how little importance ought to be attached to the 
judgment of the fathers, as to matters relating to the constitution of 
the Church. According to this view of the Chorepiscopi, presbyters 
loere not represented among the office-bearers of the Church during 
our Lord's ministry. I shall afterwards inquire into the status of the 
Chorepiscopi. 

Even these fathers, I may add, never represent the Redeemer as 
sustaining the character of a bishop. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 109 

and that in that way it is unanswerable. Our Lord, 
says he, was intrusted by his Father with the govern- 
ment of his Church, "and had under him two sorts 
of ministers; 1. Apostles; and, 2. Disciples. "* And 
after illustrating, as he imagines, in a variety of par- 
ticulars, the inferiority of the latter to the former,t 
without attempting to point out to what order the 
disciples belonged, or what order they were to repre- 
sent in the future Church, he draws from it merely 
the general conclusion, that there ought to be a simi- 
lar gradation in the Christian ministry. But if it 
prove that there ought to be a gradation, it proves, I 
apprehend, that there ought to be a corresponding 
gradation to that which existed during our Lord's 
ministry; and if this suggestion were to be adopted, 
it would lead inevitably to a constitution of the Church 
still more monstrous and absurd than that which I 
have just noticed. There would be a universal bishop, 
like our Lord himself, without cardinals, or patriarchs, 
or metropolitans, or prelates, or any other dignita- 
ries, — a minister corresponding to John the Baptist, 
belonging to an order which has never yet been 
denned, and two other orders corresponding to the 
Apostles and the seventy disciples. And if you con- 
sider what he says of the two latter orders during the 
ministry of the Redeemer, it will confirm my observa- 
tion. The Apostles, he confesses, (and his statement 
is correct,) before the night on which their Master 
was betrayed, had only the powers of deacons, and 
yet were of an order superior to that of the seven- 
ty!!! " The plenitude of the apostolick powers," 
says he, " was not conferred on the Apostles at their 
first ordination, but given them at three different 
times. 

" First, after a whole night spent in solemn prayer, 
our Lord chose them to be with him as his constant 
attendants and ministers, and to preach the Gospel. 
They had also power to baptize, though that be not 
expressed in their commission; which is evident from 

* Discourse of Church Government, p. 44. 
t Ibid. p. 4G-50. 



110 LETTERS ON 

St. John's Gospel, where it is said Jesus himself bap- 
tized not, but his disciples. All which offices have 
been generally executed in the Christian Church since 
our Lord's ascension by the deacons, or third order 
of ministers."* 

And though he immediately adds, that " after this 
they received authority to commemorate our Lord's 
sacrifice on the cross, when he commanded them at 
his last supper to do as he had done, that is, to bless 
the elements of bread and wine in remembrance of 
him, (Luke xxii. 19,) which raised them to be pres- 
byters," his inference will not follow. The Redeemer 
in that passage enjoined them not to bless the bread 
in remembrance of him, but to take it and eat it, and 
not to bless the cup, but to drink it; and they were 
to do this not as presbyters, but as believers; for the 
same thing is enjoined upon all believers, in the ac- 
count which is given by the Apostle Paul of the insti- 
tution of that ordinance, (1 Cor. xi. 23-2S;) and not 
only ministers, but the members of the Church are 
required to " examine themselves before they eat of 
that bread, and drink of that cup." The powers of 
the Apostles, then, were not enlarged on the occasion 
referred to, and if they had those only of deacons 
from their first commission, they remained only dea- 
cons till before the ascension of their Master; and 
yet they were superior to the seventy, who must 
have represented an order of Christian ministers that 
has never yet existed in any Church. The beau ideal, 
then, of the orders of the ministry in the Christian 
Church, according to the model presented by the 
Church in the days of our Lord, must be a universal 
bishop, a second minister resembling the Baptist, a 
third order corresponding to deacons without a single 
presbyter, and a fourth, inferior to the deacons, and 
corresponding to the seventy, and the powers and 
end of which no one has ever yet attempted to ex- 
plain. I am, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* Page 61. 






PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. Ill 



LETTER IX. 



The same argument, as stated by Bishop Bilson, Mr. Jones, and Bishop 
Skinner, invalid. — Upon their hypothesis there would be no deacons in 
the Church. — jYo higher powers were possessed at that time by the Apos- 
tles than by the Seventy; and ihe different circumstances mentioned by 
Archbishop Potter, to prove the superiority of the iormer, do not establish 
it. — The office of the Seventy seems to have terminated with their mis 
sion, or, at farthest, at the death of the Saviour, and consequently they 
could not be an order in the Christian Church. 

Reverend Sir, — The argument for Episcopacy which 
I have just been considering, as stated by the writers 
to whom I have already referred, is certainly a failure. 
But there is still a different form in which it has been 
proposed by others, who admit that our Lord did not 
belong to any order, but contend that he bestowed on 
the Apostles the powers of bishops, and on the disci- 
ples those of presbyters, and that similar orders should 
exist in the Church in the present day. Such was 
the opinion of Mr. Jones, who says, in his essay on 
the Church, " our Saviour at first ordained his twelve 
Apostles, according to the number of the tribes of the 
Church of Israel. Afterwards he ordained other 
seventy, according to the number of the elders whom 
Moses appointed as his assistants. When the Church 
in Jerusalem was multiplied, seven deacons were or- 
dained by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles — 
and by these the first Christian Church in Jerusalem 
was governed and administered."* Such also was 
the opinion of Bishop Bilson ; for " albeit the Son of 
God," says he, " assembled no Churches whiles he 
lived on earth — yet lest the house of God should be 
unfinished, and his harvest ungathered, in his owne 
person while hee walked heere, he called and autho- 
rized from and above the rest certaine workmen and 
stewards to take the chiefe charge, care and oversight, 
after his departure, of God's building and husbandrie, 
for which cause he made, when as yet hee was con- 
versant with men, a plain distinction betwixt his dis- 

* Page 28-29. 



112 LETTERS ON 

ciples, choosing twelve of them to be his Apostles, and 
appointing other seventy to goe before him into every 
citie and every place whither he should come, and to 
preach the kingdom of God ; giving those twelve larger 
commission, perfecter instruction, higher authoritie, 
and greater gifts of his Holy Spirit, then the rest of 
his disciples, which he made labourers also in his har- 
vest, and messengers of his kingdome."* And such, 
too, was the opinion of Bishop Skinner.t But upon 
this likewise I would remark, 

1. That if we were to adopt this hypothesis, and 
have only those orders which were in the days of the 
Redeemer, we would have bishops and presbyters in 
the Church, but there could not be deacons. 

2. It does not appear that the Apostles were pos- 
sessed of those higher powers as compared to the 
seventy, while the commission of the latter continued, 
by which bishops are at present distinguished from 
presbyters. 

It is one of the peculiar prerogatives of bishops to 
ordain presbyters and all other inferior ministers. But 
this pre-eminence, we know was not enjoyed by the 
Apostles over the seventy disciples, for it was from 
the Lord himself, and not from the Apostles, that the 
disciples received their commission. " If by imparity," 
says Still ingrleet, " be meant that the twelve Apostles 
had a superiority of power and jurisdiction over the 
seventy disciples, there is not the least evidence or 
foundation in reason or Scripture for it. For the 
seventy did not derive their power from the Apostles, 
but immediately from Christ. "J And says Dr. Whitby, 
" Whereas some compare the bishops to the Apostles, 
the seventy to the presbyters of the Church, and thence 
conclude that divers orders in the ministry were insti- 
tuted by Christ himself, it must be granted that some 
of the ancients did believe these two to be divers or- 
ders, and that those of the seventy were inferior to the 
order of the Apostles, and sometimes they make the 

* Perpetual Governtnent of the Church, p. 42, 43. 

t Primitive Truth and Order Vindicated, p. 121, 122. 

X Irenicum, p. 217, 218. 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 113 

comparison here mentioned; but then it must be also 
granted that this comparison will not strictly hold ; for 
the seventy received not their commission as presby- 
ters do from bishops, but immediately from the Lord 
Christ, as ivell as the apostles, and in their first 
mission were plainly sent the same errand, and with 
the same powerP* It is another of the prerogatives 
of bishops that they alone have the power of confir- 
mation. But no instance can be produced in which 
it was exercised by the Apostles during the life of 
their Master, and we shall by and by inquire whether 
they exercised it afterwards. And it is a third prero- 
gative of these dignitaries, that they alone have the 
chief, if not the only, power of jurisdiction and govern- 
ment. But, as was formerly noticed, the Apostles 
never appear to have exercised this power during the 
ministry of the Saviour. Nay, it is acknowledged by 
Saravia, that " though he promised them the keys of 
the kingdom of heaven, and the power of binding and 
loosing, yet he did not bestoio it upon them before his 
death, for it belonged to the Aaronic priesthood, which 
was not to cease till he had put an end to the Leviti- 
cal sacrifices, and transferred to himself the priesthood 
and every thing which was connected with it. And 
hence," he observes, " while the Old Testament 
Church continued he could not found the New."t 
But if none of the peculiar powers of bishops was pos- 
sessed by the twelve any more than the seventy, you 
can have no right to appeal to the superiority of the 
Apostles to the seventy disciples, for the superiority of 
your bishops to the inferior clergy. 

In the third place, the office of the seventy seems to 
have terminated at farthest at the death of the Saviour, 
and consequently they could not possibly be an order 
in the Christian Church. 

That the first commission, even of the Apostles 

* Consult him upon Luke x. 1. 

t Praeterca claves regni coelorum potestatemque ligandi sc dafu- 
rum promisit quam ante mortem suam non dedit, Sfc. Defensio, cap. 
3, sect. 3. Sec, too, Potter, ch. iii. p. 63, who admits that it was 
"then only the Apostles received the keys which were first promised 
to Peter as the foreman of the Apostolick College." 



114 LETTERS Otf 

themselves, expired at least with the life of their Mas- 
ter, appears to be beyond a doubt; for, had not this 
been the case, he would not have delivered to them 
a new and different commission after he had risen 
from the dead. And that 'the same was the case also 
with the seventy disciples is equally clear, for it is 
never insinuated that the commission of the latter 
was to be of longer duration than that of the former, 
and after they had returned from their mission through 
the cities of Israel, we hear of them no more. While 
the commission of the Apostles, however, was renewed 
and enlarged after the resurrection of the Saviour, no 
second commission was delivered to the seventy; nor 
is there the most distant allusion to them, either in 
the history of the Acts, or in the Apostolical Epistles. 
Nay, it is stated by Epiphanius, that the first seven 
deacons were formerly of the seventy; and it is as- 
serted by Balsamon, that they had not the power of 
remitting sins; for Philip the deacon, who was pro- 
moted to be an evangelist, because, "having used that 
office well, (1 Tim. iii. 13,) he procured for himself a 
good degree," though he preached at Samaria, (Acts 
viii.) yet could not lay his hands on the believers.* 

* Examine his Annotations on the 14th Canon of the Council of 
Neoeesarea, and Epiphanius, sub finem, torn, prioris, lib. i. p. 50. 

It is maintained, indeed, by Blondel, (Apol. pro Sententia Hiero- 
nymi, p. 118,) that Epiphanius must be mistaken, and that the seventy 
must have retained their ministry after the ascension of the Saviour; 
but his arguments are unsatisfactory. In the first place, he says 
they are denominated Apostles by a number of the fathers, to whom 
he refers, p. 113, which would not, he imagines, have been the case, 
if their ofhce had become extinct before the death of Christ. Would 
not the twelve, however, have been called Apostles, because they 
were sent forth to preach the Gospel, though they had never received 
their second commission; and why might not the same name be 
applied to the seventy, who were sent forth, like the others, two and 
two, especially as it is acknowledged by Episcopalians that it is 
given to deacons, who afterwards became Evangelists? 2dly, He 
«rgues from the reason for which they were appointed at first, name- 
1}', that " the harvest was plenteous, but the labourers few," that as 
Jong as there was need for them their office must have continued. 
41 Cum rnessis inter Judaeos copia," &c. But as no one would have 
believed that the office of the Apostles remained in the Church, 
merely because the harvest was plenteous, and the labourers were 
few, if no evidence could have been produced of their second com- 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 115 

But if such was the fact, it is plain that they must 
only have had a temporary ministry, and could not 
be intended to be a standing order in the Christian 
Church. 

It is affirmed, accordingly, by Bishop Sage, in a pre- 
ceding extract, that it not only became extinct before 
the appointment of the deacons, but as soon as they 
had finished their journey through the cities of Israel. 
And the same also were the sentiments of Stiilingfleet 
and Whitby, respecting the first commission of the 
Apostles, as well as that of the seventy disciples. " We 
observe," says the former, respecting the first commis- 
sion of the Apostles, "that imployment Christ sent them 
upon now was only a temporary imployment, confined 
as to work and place, and not the full apostolicall work. 
The want of considering and understanding this hath 
been the ground of very many mistakes among men, 
when they argue from the occasional precepts here 
given the Apostles, as from a standing perpetual rule 
for a gospel ministry. Whereas our Saviour onely 
suited these instructions to the present case, and the 
nature and condition of the Apostles' present imploy- 
ment, which was not to preach the Gospel up and 
down themselves, but to be as so many John Baptists, 
to call people to the hearing of Christ himself; and 
therefore, the doctrine they were to preach was the 

mission, so it is impossible to believe, merely for that reason, that 
the office of the seventy was to continue, when no evidence can be 
brought forward of the renewal of their commission. And he con- 
tends for it in the third place, because it is said by Paul that our 
Lord, after his resurrection, was seen of James, then of all the Apos- 
tles, (1 Cor. xv. 7 ;) and as his appearance to the twelve is previously 
mentioned, he thinks '* that the Apostles of whom he speaks must be 
some other ministers, and can have been only the seventy. Haec 
vcro in solos septuaginta viros quadrant," &c. But this is equally 
inconclusive, for it may be a subsequent appearance which is referred 
to in that passage, that, for instance, which took place at the ascen- 
sion of the Redeemer, when all the Apostles were present. 

It is remarked by Brokesby, in his History of the Government of 
the Primitive Church, as quoted by Mr. Dickinson of America, p. 14, 
of his remarks on a book entitled, A Modest Proof of the Order, &c. 
that the seventy were sent only " as forerunners before the face of 
Christ, to the places whither he would come to prepare the people to 
entertain him." 



116 LETTERS ON 

same with his, The kingdome of heaven is at hand. 
This mission, then, being occasional, limited, and tem- 
porary, can yield no foundation for any thing per- 
petual to be built upon it." And again, he remarks 
upon the Apostles and seventy, "It seems most proba- 
ble that both their missions were only temporary ; 
and after this the seventy remained in the character 
of private disciples, till they were sent abroad by a 
new commission after the resurrection, (but in a dif- 
ferent character,) for preaching the Gospel and plant- 
ing churches. Nothing can be inferred, then, for any 
necessary standing rule for Church government, from 
any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX 
during the life of Christ, because both their missions 
were temporary and occasional."* And says Dr. 
Whitby, " it is more material to observe, that as the 
first mission of the Apostles was only for a season, 
and ceased at their return, Mat. x. 1 ; so was this first 
mission of the seventy, they returning quickly from 
it; v. 17."t If the commissions, then, both of the 
Apostles and the seventy disciples were only tem- 
porary, and terminated at the period mentioned by 
these writers, and if the commission of the latter was 
never renewed, it is evident that it does not furnish 
even the shadow of an argument for maintaining that 
there ought to be corresponding standing offices in the 
Christian Church. 

1 have only farther to remark, that whatever may 
have been the duration of the office of the seventy, 
there is not a circumstance, as far as relates to their 
commission, in which they were not equal to the 
Apostles. 

Both of them were ordained by Christ himself, (Mat. 
x. 1; Luke x. 1.) They were sent forth in the same 
number, or two and two, (Mark vi. 7; Luke x. 1;) 
were appointed to deliver the same message, (Mat. x. 
7 ; Luke x. ;) were furnished with the same gifts, (Mat. 

* Irenicum, p. 211, and 218. 

+ Exposition of Luke x. 1-19. He endeavours to show that they 
received a second commission, which he says extended to the Gentiles ; 
but he fails entirely in establishing the latter opinion. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 117 

x. 8; Luke x. 17;) were to be exposed to the same 
dangers, (Mat. x. 16 ; Luke x. 3 ;) were to depend on 
the same support, (Mat. x. 9, 10 ; Luke x. 4, 7 ;) were 
invested with the same authority, (Mat. x. 40 ; Luke 
x. 16 ;) and if their message was disregarded, it was 
to be followed by the same consequences. But if they 
were completely on a level not only in some, but in 
all these respects, and especially in regard to their 
gifts and authority, it is difficult to conceive on what 
ground it can be alleged that the seventy were only 
of an inferior order. 

Archbishop Potter, however, labours very strenu- 
ously to prove their inferiority ; and as he has be- 
stowed more than common pains on his argument, it 
will be necessary to examine it. " Whereas the Apos- 
tles," says he, " were ordained to be with our Lord, 
and accordingly are every where throughout the Gos- 
pel reckoned as his constant attendants, both from the 
time of their ordination till they were sent forth to 
preach, and again after their return from preaching 
till his ascension : The seventy were only appointed 
to preach, and after they returned to our Lord and 
gave him an account of their success in the execution 
of that office, they are never once mentioned again."* 
But this evidently is no proof of the inferiority of the 
seventy ; for the reason why the Apostles were more 
frequently with their Master, was not that they were 
of a superior order to the others, but to strengthen 
their testimony to the resurrection of the Redeemer 
when their commission was enlarged, and to prepare 
them for the place which they were destined to occupy 
in the Christian Church. There were others, too, it 
should be recollected, besides the eleven, who attended 
upon the Redeemer from his baptism till his ascension, 
(Acts i. 21, 22 ;) and yet no one, I presume, will infer 
from this circumstance that they were superior to the 
seventy. 

" The seventy," he observes, " were only sent be- 
fore our Lord's face into the cities and places whither 
he himself would come, to prepare the people for his 

* Discourse of Church Government, p. 47. 



118 LETTERS ON 

reception; whereas the Apostles' commission was in 
general to preach to all the Jews."* Bat neither will 
this demonstrate the inferiority of the seventy, for they 
were sent forth toivards the end of his ministry to 
preach in the cities which he intended to visit, and 
were directed to travel with such despatch, (Luke x. 
4,) as to wait to salute "no man by the way," while 
the Apostles were sent forth at a much earlier period, 
and could travel more extensively for a similar pur- 
pose among the cities of Israel. Both, as we have 
seen, were like so many John Baptists, and were ap- 
pointed to prepare the way of their Master by preach- 
ing the same truths, and wherever they came they 
were to exercise the same powers ; and if so, the more 
extended journeyings of the one, because they were 
sent forth sooner to the very same work, cannot fur- 
nish the slightest evidence that they were of a superior 
order to the others. Timothy and Titus, who you say 
were bishops, could not itinerate so extensively as the 
Apostles, and yet there is not an Episcopalian who 
would consider this as a proof that they were of an 
inferior order to the latter, when viewed merely as 
bishops. 

" The inauguration of the seventy to their office," 
says he, " was not so solemn as that of the twelve, 
before which our Lord not only commanded his dis- 
ciples to pray to God to send forth labourers into his 
harvest, but he continued a whole night in prayer by 
himself."t As he commanded his disciples, however, 
to pray also before he sent forth the seventy, we have 
every reason to believe that he himself would pray, 
(Luke x. 2 ; Mat. ix. 37, 38.) Besides, no such solem- 
nity was enjoined before the ordination of Matthias 
to the apostleship, for the Apostles are said to have 
prayed only at the time that " the Lord would show 
them which of the two candidates he had chosen ;" 
nor did it precede that of Paul, who, according to the 
Archbishop's reasoning, must have been equal only 
to the seventy , and they and that Jipostle must 

* Discourse of Church Government, p. 47. t Ibid. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 119 

have been inferior to the deacons, for the latter were 
set apart to their office (Acts vi.) by prayer, as well 
as the imposition of hands. 

When he asserts, that " the twelve only received 
the commission to commemorate the sacrifice of our 
Lord on the cross, and to preach the Gospel to all 
nations,"* the first part of his statement is incorrect; 
for in the passage to which he refers, as was already 
noticed, they were commanded only to observe and 
not to administer the sacrament of the Supper, — a 
duty in respect of which they were on an equality 
with the seventy, and with every Christian. And the 
last of these powers was bestowed on them by the 
Redeemer after his resurrection, when he enlarged 
their commission, and when the seventy, at least in 
their former character, as their commission was not 
renewed, were no longer a part of the ministry of the 
Church. 

He argues, that the twelve must have been superior 
to the seventy, because "twelve thrones were ap- 
pointed, whereon these twelve men should sit to 
judge the twelve tribes of Israel." And yet he for- 
gets to show that this promise was fulfilled to them 
during the life of their Master, when they and the 
seventy were engaged in his service, and not accord- 
ing to its obvious meaning under the Gospel dispen- 
sation, when the seventy had ceased to be ministers, 
and they themselves had been elevated to the princi- 
pal place in the Christian Church. And he observes, 
that " the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem 
were to contain the names of the twelve Apostles."! 
But this is a prediction of nothing which was to hap- 
pen in regard to them during our Lord's ministry, 
while the seventy were with them, but only of the 
foundation of the Millennial Church on the very doc- 
trines on which they founded the New Testament 
Church after the resurrection of the Redeemer, and 
has not the most distant reference to the point at 
issue. The very same doctrines might be preached 

* Discourse of Church Government, p. 48. t Ibid. 



120 LETTERS ON 

by the seventy while their ministiy lasted, and they 
may still be preached by evangelical ministers. But 
as the Apostles were invested with the highest of the 
three extraordinary offices in the New Testament 
Church, (Eph. iv. 11,) and not only preached these 
doctrines, but, under the guidance of inspiration, 
wrote those Epistles which were to be the only infal- 
lible rule of faith in regard to these truths throughout 
future ages, they are represented figuratively, in con- 
sequence of ivhat they did in the New Testament 
Church, as having their names engraved in the foun- 
dations of the Millennial Church, or, according to 
others, of the Church in glory. 

Nor is he a whit more successful in his last obser- 
vation, though he seems to consider it as furnishing a 
very powerful argument for establishing his opinion. 
"When a vacancy happened," says he, "in the Col- 
lege of Apostles, by the apostasy of Judas, another 
was, in a most solemn manner, by divine designation, 
appointed to take his bishoprick. Matthias, the per- 
son ordained to succeed Judas, if any credit may be 
given to Eusebius, was one of the seventy; and Bar- 
nabas, Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, and other Evangelists, 
as also the seven deacons, who were all, undoubtedly, 
even after their promotion to these offices, inferior to 
the twelve Apostles, if the primitive fathers of the 
Church may be believed, were also of the seventy."* 
If the office of the seventy, as has been repeatedly 
remarked, after accomplishing its end, had ceased to 
exist before the death of the Redeemer, it presents an 
easy and satisfactory solution of these imaginary diffi- 
culties. Matthias, who previously was without any 
office, though he had been one of the seventy, was not 
only promoted to an office, but to the very highest in 
the New Testament Church. The same would be the 
case with Barnabas, Mark, and Sosthenes, when they 
were appointed evangelists; for if they formerly be- 
longed to the seventy, they were then without an 
office, and yet were advanced to a superior office. And 
the same remark applies even to the seven individuals 

* Discourse of Church Government, pp. 48, 49. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 121 

who were ordained to be deacons; for though they 
had been of the number of the seventy, they also were 
without an office ; and to men who have no office the 
very lowest is promotion. But upon the hypothesis 
of the Archbishop, Bishop Bilson and Mr. Jones, this 
is completely inexplicable; for if the seventy were 
not only a standing order in the Church, but the 
second order, instead of being promoted when they 
weie made deacons, they would have been degraded, 
for deacons belong only to the third order. In every 
point of view, therefore, this boasted argument, in all 
the forms in which it has been presented by the lead- 
ing defenders of Episcopacy, utterly fails; and if your 
ecclesiastical polity can be vindicated only on such 
grounds as these, it must be revolting alike to e^ery 
man of Christian feeling and sober sense, to hear you 
propound the monstrous doctrine, that where it does 
not exist there can be neither a Christian Church, nor 
a Christian ministry, nor any covenanted title to the 
blessings of salvation.* 

1 am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER X. 

The argument of Archdeacon Daubeny and Bishop Gleig, for the order of 
bishops, from the extraordinary office assigned to the Apostles in the JN T ew 
Testament Church, proved to be fallacious. — It no more follows from what 
is said in Matthew xxviii. 20, that there are to be Apostles till the end of 
the world, than from what is said in Ephesians iv. 11-13, that there are 
to he New Testament Prophets and Evangelists till that time.— Thai office 
proved to have ceased as to its peculiar powers with those who were first 
invested with it, because no one since their death has possessed the quali- 
fications which it required, nor has been called to it in the way in which 
they were appointed, nor has been instructed by inspiration like them in 
the (ruths which he was to deliver, nor could perform miracles. — Sutclive, 
VVillet, Barrow and others, deny that bishops succeed Apostles in their 
peculiar powers. 

Reverend Sir, — It is alleged, however, by many of 
the advocates of diocesan Episcopacy, that whatever 

* It deserves to be mentioned, that VVillet, in his Synopsis, Appen- 
dix to the Fillh General Controv., Quest. 3, refutes this very argu- 
ment, when it was urged by Cardinal Bellarrnine, for the divine right 
of Episcopacy. 



122 LETTERS ON 

may be thought of the preceding arguments, the supe- 
riority of bishops to presbyters and deacons is abso- 
lutely indisputable, because they are represented in 
Scripture as the successors of the Apostles, and as 
invested with the office, and possessed of all the high 
and pre-eminent authority which belonged to these 
ministers in the early Church. Such was the opinion 
of the late Archdeacon Daubeny, who asserts, that 
" there was no other difference between the Apostles 
and bishops but this, — the Apostles being confessedly 
the first planters of the Gospel, were general and am- 
bulatory bishops, having the care and superintendence 
of all the Churches, 2 Cor. xi. 28; but bishops ivere 
Jipostles fixed in the jurisdiction of one city or pro- 
vince."* Such also was the opinion of Bishop Gleig, 
who endeavoured to support it by a lengthened argu- 
ment in the Anti-Jacobin Review; and such, as will 
appear in the course of this and the following letter, 
was the opinion of others of the most zealous defend- 
ers of your ecclesiastical polity. 

I acknowledge, that if this statement were borne 
out by fact it would be decisive of the question, and 
we could not too soon submit to your bishops, and 
attach ourselves to your communion. But before we 
can do this we must be convinced of two things; — 
first, that the apostleship, with all its high and pecu- 
liar powers, remains in the Church, and is possessed 
by your prelates; and next, that if these have ceased, 
and nothing but its ordinary powers continue, which 
were exercised by the Apostles in the primitive Church, 
as was formerly proved, along with presbyters, they 
may not still be exercised, when the apostleship is 
extinct as to its peculiar powers, and distinguishing 
prerogatives, by elders or presbyters. 

You imagine that you can produce satisfactory evi- 
dence for the perpetual duration of the apostolic office ; 
for our " Saviour," says Bishop Gleig, " when he 
gave authority to the eleven to convert and baptize 
the nations, expressly declared that he would be with 

* Appendix to his Guide to the Church, p. 63. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 123 

them always, even unto the end of the world."* But 
if you really think so, and are persuaded that your 
prelates are Apostles, why do you not call them by 
that name, and speak of the Apostle as well as the 
Bishop of Durham, or Exeter, or Glasgow, or Argyle, 
or any other diocese in England and Scotland? And 
if you believe that the apostleship, in its higher powers 
and peculiar functions, is to continue in the Church, 
because the Saviour promised to the eleven that he 
would be with them always till the end of the world, I 
beg to be informed, whether you believe also that the 
two next higher orders are to remain along with it and 
that they exist in the Church in the present day ? For 
you know it is declared by Paul, that the Redeemer 
" gave" not only " some apostles, but some prophets, 
and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the 
ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ ; 
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the ac- 
knowledgment (sTtcyv cost cos) of the Son of God, to a per- 
fect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness 
of Christ," (Eph. iv. 1 1-1 3,) which will not be attained 
either by any individual saint, or by the whole mystical 
body, or Church of Christ collectively, till the end of 
the world. "These prophets/' says Gersom Bucer, 
" were that order of ministers who, under the super- 
natural direction of the Spirit, explained the predic- 
tions of the Old Testament, and occasionally foretold 
future events ;"t and if we may believe Saravia, the 

* Article on Dr. Campbell's Lectures on Church History in the 
Anti-Jacobin, vol. 9. 

t"Prophetae mihi eximii interpretes qui propheticae Scripturae 
sensum insigni quodam revelationis dono ecclesiae pandebant," &c. 
Dissertatio dc Gubernatione Ecclesiae, p. 2. Nor is it any objection 
to this, that the interpretations given by one prophet through revela- 
tion, 1 Cor. xiv. 30, were allowed to be judged of by other prophets, 
v. 29-32. Even the private members of the Church of Berea, (Acts 
xvii. 11,) "searched the Scriptures daily," to ascertain whether the 
doctrine of the Apostles was consistent with the Old Testament, and 
arc praised for doing so; and yet the Apostles were assisted by the 
same supernatural influence with the prophets. I would only farther 
remark, that as soon as the canon of the New Testament was com- 
pleted, and sullicient information was communicated to the Church 



124 LETTERS ON 

friend of Hooker, " were superior to bishops."* And 
I shall by and by inquire into the office of evangelists. 
I presume you are convinced that both these offices 
have long ago been discontinued, and that neither 
prophets nor evangelists are to be found in your 
Church, or among the Scottish Episcopalians, though 
you tell us you have Apostles ; and if the former have 
ceased, though it was announced that they were to 
continue till the whole Christian Church had attained, 
the stature of a perfect man, I deny that you can infer 
the perpetual continuance of the apostolic office in its 
peculiar powers and higher functions, any more than 
the prophetic, from the promise of the Redeemer, that 
he would be with the eleven always to the end of the 
world. 

I would remark, farther, that as it is utterly impos- 
sible to prove, from that passage, that the apostleship 
was to continue, so it is evident, from a great variety 
of considerations which are mentioned in Scripture, 
that it was an extraordinary office, and has for a long 
time been extinct. 

Every one is aware that an office may be necessary 
for arranging the affairs and organizing the govern- 
ment of an infant colony, or a disordered province, for 
the execution of which special powers may be dele- 
gated to one or several commissioners ; and that as 
soon as they have accomplished the task which was 
assigned to them, they are recalled by their sovereign, 

respecting those ancient predictions which related to the Saviour, this 
order of ministers was discontinued, as they were no longer ne- 
cessary. 

It would seem, that after they had finished their interpretation of 
any of the prophecies, they concluded it with an address, for we are 
told, Acts xv. 32, that " Judas and Silas also being prophets them- 
selves, exhorted the brethren." 

* " As the authority of an Apostle," says he, de Minist. Evang. 
Grad,, cap. 1, "was superior to that of an evangelist, and the au- 
thority of a prophet and of an evangelist to that of a bishop or a pres- 
byter; so the authority of Titus and Timothy, who were presbyters 
and bishops, was superior to that of the presbyters, who, by the ap- 
pointment of the Apostle, were ordained by them in every city. Nam 
quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae," 
&c. See, too, Hooker's Life by Bishop Gauden. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 125 

and their office discontinued. It was so, for instance, 
on a recent occasion, in the history of oar own country, 
when the late Lord Sydenham was sent to Canada, 
with special powers to settle the affairs of that distant 
colony, which have ceased already ; and no one would 
affirm, that because they were vested in him they will 
be continued to every succeeding governor. And for 
aught that appears it may have been so in regard to 
the twelve apostles,* who are represented by Daubeny 
as "confessedly the first planters of the Gospel," and 
who may have been furnished with high and extra- 
ordinary powers, which have not descended to others, 
for founding and organizing the Christian Church. 
And that this was really the case, and though they 
acted sometimes as ordinary ministers, in which re- 
spects they have been succeeded by ordinary ministers, 
yet, when they acted as Apostles, they sustained a 
character, and were invested with an office in which 
they had no successors, will appear, I apprehend, from 
the following considerations : 

Qualifications were required for the office of an 
Apostle, which have not been possessed by any for 
many hundred years, and which cannot now be at- 
tained, from which it evidently follows that it must 
no longer exist. 

To fit an individual for being invested with this 
office it was necessary, we are informed, that he should 
have seen the Saviour, if not before, yet at least after 
his resurrection. When a successor, accordingly, was 
appointed to Judas, it was mentioned by Peter as an 

* " The Apostles and Evangelists," says Calderwood, (Altare Da- 
maseenum, p. 174,) "exercised the powers of ordination and jurisdic- 
tion in the Church, and yet it will not follow that Apostles and Evan- 
gelists must remain in the Church till the end of the world. Moses 
and his successor Joshua led the people of God through the desert, 
and brought them into the land of Canaan ; and yet when the people 
Were settled in that land, it was not needful that Moses and Joshua 
slioulil have successors of the same political order. And, in like man- 
ner, the Apostles and Evangelists led the faithful through the wilder- 
ness of Paganism, and planted the Churches ; and yet it is no more 
needful that we should choose others to succeed them with the same 
ecclesiastical authority. Evangelistae et Apostoli potcstatem ordi- 
nationis ct jurisdictionis exercebant," Sec. 



126 LETTERS ON 

indispensable prerequisite, that. " he should be one of 
those who had companied with them, (the eleven) all 
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among 
them;" because, as he adds, he was to be " a witness 
with them of his resurrection ;" Acts i. 21, 22. And 
when Paul proves his apostleship to the Corinthians, 
he rests it among other things upon his having seen 
the Lord. "Am I not an Apostle?" says he, 1 Cor. 
ix. 1 , " Am I not free ?" i. e. as to the matters of which 
he had been speaking in the preceding chapter, " Have 
I not seen Christ Jesus our Lord ?" But if it was in- 
dispensable to this office, that the person who was in- 
vested with it should have seen the Lord, and if none 
of your bishops, nor any other prelates since diocesan 
Episcopacy was first established, have ever seen him, 
I cannot see on what ground you can consider them 
as Apostles, or claim for them that high and para- 
mount authority which belonged to an office that must 
now be extinct. 

If it be objected with Bishop Gleig, that "this could 
not constitute the essence of the apostleship, because 
our blessed Lord was seen in the flesh of above five 
hundred brethren at once after he rose from the dead, 
though there were then only eleven Apostles,"* I 
have briefly to remark, that it is not represented as 
the essence of that office, but only as an essential 
qualification for it. Every one, in other words, who 
had seen the Redeemer after he rose from the dead, 
did not, in consequence of it, become an Apostle ; but 
no one without it could be made an Apostle. And 
as there is not at present a diocesan bishop who has 
seen the Lord, none can either have a right to the name, 
or be entitled to exercise the powers of an Apostle. 

The call of an Apostle, also, to his high office was 
external and immediate from the Redeemer himself. 

It was in this way that the eleven were admitted to 
their office after the resurrection of their master ; and 
it was in a similar way that Matthias was appointed ; 
for we are told that the disciples prayed to the Lord 

* Article on Dr. Campbell's Lectures in the Anti-Jacobin, vol. 9. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 127 

to show them " which of the two candidates he had 
chosen ; and that by a supernatural influence, exerted 
on their minds, he directed them to Matthias.* And 
the same, too, was the way in which it was bestowed 
upon Paul ; for when he proves to the Galatians that 
he was an Apostle, he tells them, (chap. i. 1,) that he 
was " an Apostle, not of men, neither by 7?2a?z,butby 
Jesus Christ and God the Father/' — plainly intimating 
that if he had received his office by the instrumentality 
of men, and not immediately from the Saviour, he 
would have been unworthy of the name. But. if this 
be the case, and if none of your bishops, nor any 
diocesan that ever existed, received his office imme- 
diately from Christ, and if all of them obtained it by 
human instrumentality, they cannot be Apostles, nor 
be entitled to exercise the peculiar powers of these 
early ministers, and the office itself must undoubtedly 
be extinct. 

In the third place, an Apostle was instructed by re- 
velation in the truths which he delivered, and whether 
he wrote or preached, it was under the supernatural 
direction of the Spirit. 

It will scarcely be denied that this was the case with 
the twelve after the effusion of the Spirit on the day 
of Pentecost, and it is equally plain that it was the 
case with Paul, for he says to the Galatians, (chap. 
i. 11, 12,) " But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel 
which was preached of me is not after man. For I 
neither received it of man, neither ivas I taught it, 
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." It was impos- 
sible, therefore, that any Apostle could fall into error, 
whether he preached or wrote, when he was under the 
supernatural guidance of the Spirit. And though in- 
struction in the truth by means of revelation, and infal- 
lible direction in speaking and writing about the doc- 
trines of the Gospel, might be communicated to others 
who were not Apostles, yet no one could be an Apos- 

* " The lot which fell on Matthias," says Spanhcim, " was really 
the voiee of God, no less than was that of the division of Canaan, of 
the scape-goat, &c. De Matthia sortc, id est divina voce, quulitcr in 
distributionc tcrrac, in scgregatione hirci," &c. Dissert. 27. 



128 LETTERS ON 

tie without it. If this, however, was another of the 
privileges of these distinguished ministers, and if none 
of your bishops have ever advanced the smallest claim 
to it, and it is possessed by none in the present day, 
it is impossible to see how they can be considered 
as Apostles, or can have a right to exercise the powers 
of that office.* 

The power of working miracles to attest his com- 
mission seems to have been inseparably connected 
with the office of an Apostle. Paul accordingly tells 
the Corinthians, (2 Cor. xii. 12,) that " truly the signs 
of an Apostle had been wrought among them in all 
patience, in signs, and wonders, and. mighty deeds, 
iv or^utiots xac tsgaai xai Swaps ai ;"t plainly intimating 
that where such miracles were not performed, the 
individual could not be considered as an Apostle, and 
had no right to claim to himself that high character. 
And the same thing is mentioned elsewhere of the 
rest of the Apostles. Others, it is true, might possess 
this power, and might not be Apostles, but no one 
who wanted it could be included among these minis- 
ters. And not only was it requisite that he should 
possess this power, but that he should have it to a 
greater extent than any other minister: for none but 
an Apostle, so far as is mentioned in Scripture, was 
able to communicate miraculous gifts by the imposi- 
tion of hands; and " the giving of the Holy Ghost" is 
represented by Bishop Bilson as " the verie seale of 
his apostleship. 7 ^ Nor is it any objection to this that 
Ananias is stated to have put his hands on Saul, (Paul,) 
Acts ix. 17, and said to him, " The Lord, even Jesus, 
that appeared to thee in the way hath sent me, that 
thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the 

* Origen, when speaking of the twelve Apostles in his 18th Homily 
on Joshua, torn. i. p. 370, says, " Assuredly they were wiser than 
those who now ordain bishops, or presbyters, or deacons. Utique 
multo sapientiores erant quam ii qui nunc episcopos, vel presbyteros, 
vel diaconos ordinant," where he evidently distinguishes Apostles 
from Bishops, 

+ Compare Acts ii. 22, viii. 13, Rom. xv. 19, Heb. ii. 4, Matthew 
xii. 38, 39, John ii. ll.xviii.23. 

X Acts viii. 14-17, xix. 6. Perpetual Government, p. 85. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 129 

Holy Ghost," for the Holy Ghost in his spiritual gifts 
appears to have been given not by the laying on of 
the hands of Ananias, but at the baptism of Saul, 
which is said in the next verse to have taken place 
immediately. But whatever there may be in this, 
the power of working miracles was indispensable to 
an Apostle; and as it is not possessed by any of your 
bishops, or any other bishop in the present day, they 
cannot have any claim to the name of Apostles, and 
the office which requires such a supernatural power 
must unquestionably have ceased. 

And, in the last place, the authority of an Apostle 
was of a much higher order, and his commission more 
extensive than that of any other minister either in the 
primitive Church or in the present day. 

So far from being restricted to any particular dio- 
cese, we are informed that the eleven were empowered 
by their Master to preach the Gospel, and perform all 
the other duties of their office, not only " in Judea and 
Samaria, but among all nations — to every creature, 
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth;"* so that, 
in the language of Whitaker, " it may be most truly 
affirmed that they were bishops of the whole world, 
and the whole world was their diocese."! And as 
none of your bishops has such a commission, and as 
no other bishop has such a diocese, his conclusion is 
irresistible, that " they must be mere dabblers in theo- 

* Math, xxviii. 19, Mark xvi. 15, Acts i. 8. 

t Possis vcrissime dicere Apostolos fuisse episcopos totius mundi, 
mundumque totum fuisse Apostolorum cfts/jois-/)'." De Pontif., Quaest. 
ii. cap. 8, sec. 41. 

"The office of an Apostle," says Jewel, also, in his Exposition of 
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, p. 123, " was not to rest in 
any one certain place, but. to passe from country to country, from land 
to land, and to till all the world with knowledge of the Gospell, and 
therein app?areth the difference between an Apostle and a bishop — a 
bishop had the charge of one certaine Church, an Apostle had the 
charge over all the Churches." 

11 Paul was not tied to any one citie, or iland, or country. He had 
authority to preach to all cities and countries, to all lands and ilands, 
from the cast to the west. So did Christ appoint his Apostles. — The 
whole world was their dioccs.se and their province. — Therefore, if any 
of the Apostles should have staid in one place, and have gone no 
farther, he had - Mended and done otherwise than Christ commanded." 
9 



130 LETTERS ON 

logy who assert that the apostolic authority still 
remains in the Church."* And as there are none 
who can labour wherever they please in such a dio- 
cese, so there are none who can lay claim to the same 
high authority. " That the Apostles," says Bilson, 
" had a superiour vocation above Prophets, Evange- 
lists, Pastours, Teachers, and even the government 
and oversight of them, will soone appeare, if we con- 
sider what Paul the Apostle writeth of himselfe, and 
unto them, directing, appointing and limitting as well 
Prophets as Evangelists, (and therefore much more 
Pastours and Teachers,) what to do, and how to be 
conversant in the Church of God."t Where is the 
man among all your bishops whom prophets or evan- 
gelists would acknowledge to be their superior, or 
who, if any of them were living, could lay upon them 
his commands, or say with an Apostle, " Thus ordain 
I in all the Churches?" Or where is the individual 
who, as he travelled through the world, could sum- 
mon before him not only the members but the minis- 
ters of every Church, and sit in judgment on their 
conduct ? All this, however, was done by the Apos- 
tles when they acted in that character, and if no one 
now would attempt to do it, does it not present a 
strong and unanswerable argument to prove that 
he has no right to be considered as an Apostle, and 
that that office must long ago have ceased in the 
Church? 

So undeniably does this conclusion follow from 
these premises, that it is admitted by many of your 
eminent divines, who state it even as a principle which 
cannot be controverted in their reasonings with the 
Papists. " Apostles and pastors, or bishops properly 
so called," says Sutclive, " are so distinguished in 
Scripture, that it is one thing plainly to be an Apos- 
tle, and another to be a pastor or bishop. "J " His 

* " Unde intelligi potest quam inconsiderate quidam theologati 
affirmant apostolicam authoritatem adhuc in Ecclesia remanere." De 
Pontif. Lib. 1, Quaest. 8, cap. 3, not. 2. 

t Perpetual Government, p. 45. 

t De Pontif., lib. 2, cap. 10, where he proves that Peter was not a 
bishop. " Although the Roman bishop?," says he, " succeeded Peter 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 131 

argument concludeth not/' says Willet of Bellarmine, 
" Apostles were above disciples, ergo bishops, &c. 
unlesse he doe assume thus; but bishops are Apos- 
tles, which is denied by Ignatius, who, though he 
were neere to the Apostles' time, being the third 
bishop of Antioch after Peter, and had seene Christ 
after his resurrection, yet writing to the Antiochians 
saith, — I do not command these things as an Apos- 
tle."* And omitting what has been said by Whitaker 
and Lightfoot,t nothing can be more decided than 
the opinion of Dr. Barrow, or more convincing than 
his arguments. " It is a rule," says he, "in the canon 
law, that a personal privilege doth follow the person, 
and is extinguished with the person. The apostolical 
office as such was personal and temporary ; and there- 
fore, according to nature and design, not successive 
or communicable to others, in perpetual descendence 
from them. It was, as such, in all respects extra- 

in doctrine and the chair, yet they succeeded him not in his apostle- 
ship, but the latter bishops in neither. Quare etiam olirn Romani 
episcopi," &c. p. 175, 176. 

* Appendix to the Fifth Generall Controversie. Quest. 3, Synopsis, 
Papismi. 

t u Bellarmine," says Whitaker, " seems to say, the Pope succeeds 
Peter in his apostleship. But none can have apostolic power but he 
who is properly and truly an Apostle; for the power and office of an 
Apostle constitute an Apostle. But that the Pope is neither truly 
nor properly an Apostle, is proved by these arguments whereby Paul 
proves his apostleship, as that he was not called by men," &c. De 
Pontif. Roman., lib. 4. cap. 25. 

" When Paul," says Dr. Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 788, " reckoneth the 
several kinds of ministry that Christ Jesus left in the Church at his 
ascension, Eph. iv. 11, and Cor. xii. 28, there is none that can think 
them all to be perpetuated, or that they should continue successively 
in the like order from time to time; for within an hundred years 
after our Saviour's birth where were either prophets or evangelists, 
miracles or healings? And if these extraordinary kinds of ministra- 
tion were ordained but for a time, and for special occasion, and were 
not to be imitated in the Church unto succeeding times; much more, 
or at the least as much more were the Apostles, an order much more, 
at least as much extraordinary as they. 

" These things well considered, if there were no more, it will show 
how improbable and unconsonant the first inference is — that because 
there was a subordination between the Apostles and Philip, (Acts viii.) 
that therefore the like is to be reputed betwixt bishops and other 
minister 8, and that bishops in the Church are in the place of the Apos- 
</rs." 



132 LETTERS ON 

ordinary; conferred in a special manner, designed 
for special purposes, discharged by special aids, en- 
dowed with special privileges, as was needful for the 
propagation of Christianity and founding of churches. 
To that office it was requisite that the persons should 
have an immediate assignation and commission from 
God. It was requisite that an Apostle should be able 
to attest respecting our Lord's resurrection and ascen- 
sion. It was needful, also, that an Apostle should be 
endowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling 
him both to assure his authority and to execute his 
office. It was also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, pro- 
per to an Apostle that he should be able, according 
to his discretion, in a certain and conspicuous manner, 
to impart spiritual gifts. It was also a privilege of 
an Apostle, by virtue of his commission from Christ, 
to instruct all nations in the doctrine and law of 
Christ. Apostles also did govern in an absolute man- 
ner according to discretion, as being guided by infal- 
lible assistance. It did belong to them to found 
churches, to constitute pastors, to settle orders, to 
correct offences, to perform all such acts of sovereign 
spiritual power, in virtue of the same divine assist- 
ance. Now, such an office was not designed to con- 
tinue by derivation, for it containeth in it divers things 
which apparently were not communicable, and which 
no man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could 
challenge to himself. Neither did the Apostles pre- 
tend to communicate it. They did indeed appoint 
standing pastors and teachers in each church ; they 
did assume fellow-labourers or assistants in the work 
of preaching and governance: but they did not con- 
stitute Apostles equal to themselves in authority, pri- 
vilege, or gifts." And he adds in a note, "The Apos- 
tles themselves make the apostolate a distinct office 
from pastors and teachers, which are the standing 
officers in the Church; Ephes. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28;" 
and maintains as the legitimate conclusion from these 
arguments, that " the apostolic office did expire with 
their persons"* As Spanheim then said to the pope, 

* See his Works, vol. i. p. 72-74, Pope's Supremacy. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 133 

when he represented himself as an Apostle, "Let him 
descend now from the Capitol, — let him, as did the 
Apostles, declare that he has the gift of tongues di- 
vinely infused, — let him bring visibly the gifts of the 
Holy Ghost from heaven, — let him work like the 
Apostles such illustrious miracles, and then we shall 
yield that he has apostolic authority;" so I would say 
to your bishops, and to all other prelates who claim 
to be Apostles, let them exhibit such proofs of their 
apostleship as these, and then, but not till then, we 
will admit them to be Apostles. And till they are 
able to do this, you must permit me to maintain the 
opinion of Dr. Barrow, that the apostolate has ceased, 
and to object to your attempting to found an argu- 
ment on any of the powers which were vested in 
these extraordinary and temporary ministers for simi- 
lar powers to any particular order of ordinary minis- 
ters, unless you can prove that they exercised them 
with ministers of that order in their own day, and 
consequently, that they were not peculiar to the for- 
mer, or that the latter are pointed out as their succes- 
sors. And I am greatly mistaken if you will succeed 
in accomplishing what has never yet been done, and 
establish these points in favour of your bishops. 
I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER XI. 

As presbyteries can perform the work of" discipling the nations" by preach- 
ing and baptizing till the end of the world, and are the highest order of 
standing ministers mentioned in the .New Testament, they are entitled 
to be considered as the successors of the Apostles. — This acknowledged 
by Willet. — The report that the Apostles divided the world into different 
parts, and that each of them laboured in one of them as its bishop, proved 
to be fabulous, though repeated by Bishop Gleig. — It cannot be inferred 
from the application of the name Apostles by the fathers to some of the 
bishops that the latter succeed the Apostles, for they give it also to pres- 
byters, and even females. — Refutation of the argument for Episcopacy 
from the appointment of James to the Bishopric of Jerusalem. — Quota- 
tions from spurious writings of the fathers, in support of this fiction, by 
Bishop (Jleig arid the present Curate of Derry, exposed. 

Reverend Sir, — There is none of the statements of 
Presbyterian writers which has called forth more keen 



134 LETTERS ON 

or pointed animadversion on the part of Episcopalians, 
than that which relates to the temporary duration 
of the office of the Apostles. "Where," it was 
asked by the late Bishop Gleig, "is this piece of 
information to be received? Not surely from Scrip- 
ture, for our Saviour, when he gave authority to the 
eleven to convert and baptize the nations, expressly 
declared that he would be with them always, even 
unto the end of the world. As he knew all things, 
no man professing to believe the Gospel will presume 
to say, that he supposed the lives of the eleven and 
the duration of the world of equal extent. We must 
therefore conclude that when he said he would be 
with them, he meant with all who unto the end of 
the world should hold the commission which he now 
gave them."* But admitting that it was with their 
successors, and not with themselves, that the Saviour 
was to be present till the end of the world, it remains 
to be proved that their successors were to be Apostles. 
Now this the bishop never attempted to prove, nor 
has any thing like argument been produced in sup- 
port of it by any Episcopalian. I have never heard 
whether he considered himself as an Apostle ; but of 
this I am certain, that neither he, nor any of his 
brethren, nor any other bishop for many hundreds of 
years, has seen the Saviour since he ascended to 
heaven, nor possessed the other qualifications for the 
apostleship, nor could perform the signs which are 
mentioned by Paul as attesting its commission; and 
consequently whoever are the successors of these 
early ministers till the end of the world, it cannot be 
Apostles, or the Scriptures must mislead us. Besides, 
the work which was committed to them by their Mas- 
ter, when he gave this promise, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, 
was that of " discipling the nations," by preaching 
the word, and admitting them into the Church by 
baptism; and though it ivas begun by Apostles, 
who had extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers, 
it has been proved by fact, that it was to be carried 

* Review of Dr. Campbell's Lectures in the Anti- Jacobin, vol. 9, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 135 

on afterwards by ministers possessed of very differ- 
ent qualifications, and furnished merely with ordi- 
nary gifts, till the end of the world. Who these 
ministers are that were to succeed them, cannot be 
discovered from this passage, and must be ascer- 
tained from other parts of Scripture. If you are 
able to produce satisfactory evidence for the insti- 
tution of the order of diocesan bishops, and a distinct 
account of their powers, (which has never yet been 
done,) you will be entitled to include them among 
the successors of the Apostles, but not to represent 
them as Apostles. And if it appear, on the contrary, 
that presbyters are the highest order of ministers re- 
cognised in the New Testament after Apostles, Pro- 
phets and Evangelists, and that they have power from 
their office to preach and baptize, and thus convert 
the nations, I claim for them the honour of being the 
successors of these distinguished early ministers. Nor 
in asserting this claim do I use stronger language than 
that which has been employed by some of the bright- 
est ornaments of your Church in former times. I 
might appeal to others, but I shall refer only to Wil- 
let. After remarking that " all faithful and godly 
pastors and ministers are the successors of the Apos- 
tles," he thus proceeds: "In respect of their extraor- 
dinary calling, miraculous gifts and apostleship, the 
Apostles properly have no successors, as Master Ben- 
bridge, martyr, saith, that he believed not bishops to 
be the successors of the Apostles, for that they bee not 
called as they were, nor have that grace; Fox, — 
p. 2046, Art. 6, That, therefore, which the Apostles 
were specially appointed unto, is the thing wherein 
the Apostles icere properly succeeded, but that was 
the preaching of the Gospel; as Saint Paul saith, he 
was sent to preach, not to baptize. 1 Cor. i. 17. The 
promise of succession, we see, is in the preaching of 
the word, which appertaineth as well to other pastors 
and ministers as unto bishops, as afterwards shall 
bee declared. Again, seeing in the Apostles' time, 
episcopus and presbyter, a bishop and priest, were 
neither in name or office distinguished, as Master 



136 LETTERS ON 

Lambert, martyr, (Fox, p. 1111.) proveth by that 
place of Saint Paul, Tit. i., where the Apostle calleth 
them bishops, v. 7, whom before, v. 5, he had named 
presbyters, pines Is, or elders. To this agreeth the 
Councell Aquisgranens, cap. 8, collecting thus out of 
this place, Paulus Apostolus, &c. Paul the Apostle 
doth affirme the elders or presbyters to be true priests 
or pastors under the name of bishops. It folio weth 
then, that either the Apostles assigned no succession 
while they lived, neither appointed their successors, 
or that indifferently all faithful pastors and preach- 
ers of the apostolike faith are the *ftpostles' succes- 
sors."* Nay, the Church of England recognises 
presbyters in this character, for she appoints this 
passage (Mat. xxviii. 20,) to be read to them at their 
ordination; and the same is the language not only of 
Irengeus and Jerome, but even of Ignatius, to whose 
opinion you are accustomed to attach such weight; 
for if any reliance can be placed on the genuineness 
of his Epistles, it is presbyters, and not diocesan 
bishops, (if there were any such ministers in his day,) 
whom he represents as the successors of the Apostles. 
Thus, in his Epistle to the Magnesians he speaks of 
the "bishop, (who he was I shall afterwards inquire,) 
as presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters 
in the place of the Sanhedrim of the Jipostles, tw 
7te,£0i5v?ie,<"V fij toTtov owtbgiov t^v artoijfoxwv." And in 
his Epistle to the Trallians he denominates them u lhe 
Sanhedrim of God, and the ow&topov of the Apostles." 
While I maintain, then, that the office of the Apostles 
has ceased, I contend that their successors are ordi- 
nary ministers, denominated presbyters or pastors and 
teachers, who are the highest order mentioned in the 
New Testament, and who are completely equal to 
the performance of the work of preaching and bap- 
tizing, in which they were to have successors, and 
that with them the Saviour has promised to be pre- 
sent till the end of the world. 

It has been mentioned in these letters as one of the 
circumstances which distinguished the Apostles from 

* Synopsis, p. 269. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 137* 

diocesan prelates, and which proves that their office 
is extinct, that while the latter are restricted to a par- 
ticular district, and cannot go heyond it, the former 
were bishops of the world. But this is contradicted 
by Bishop Gleig, who observes after Downam,* "not 
to insist on the reports of antiquity, that they divided 
the earth among them; it will be sufficient on this 
occasion to appeal to St. Paul, whose testimony, when 
direct, the greatest zealot for novel opinions will hardly 
dare to controvert. Now, this Apostle assures us, Ro- 
mans xv. 20, that he strove to preach the Gospel not 
where Christ was named, lest he should build on an- 
other man's foundation; and as he quotes the author- 
ity of Isaiah for his conduct, it is not possible that the 
other Apostles conducted themselves differently."! 
But before the Bishop had retailed the fable about 
the division of the earth among the Apostles, or 
founded upon it, he ought to have considered whether 
he could reply to what had been said about it by 
Still ingfleet. " As for the division of provinces among 
the Apostles," says the latter, after a long train of 
most convincing reasoning, " mentioned in ecclesias- 
tical writers, though as to some few they generally 
agree, as that Thomas went to Parthia, and Andrew 
to Scythia, John to the Lesser Asia, &c. yet as to the 
most, they are at a losse where to find their provin- 
ses, and contradict one another in reference to them, 
and many of them seem to have their first original 
from the fable of Dorotheus, Nicephorus, and such 
writers.";}: And said Ernesti in his MS. Lectures, 
" There is an opinion that the Apostles agreed among 
themselves to divide the earth into twelve parts, and 
to assign one to each Apostle; but it is fabulous, and 
savours of the traditions of the Jews, who report that 
Noah divided the earth into three parts, and distribu- 
ted them to his sons by lot. Our author (one on whom 
he was commenting,) appeals in support of it to the 
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Can any one sup- 

* Defense of his Sermon, book iv. p. 52. 

t Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. ; Critique on Campbell's Lectures. 

t Ircnicum, p. 237. 



*138 LETTERS ON 

pose that Eusebius delivers this? But he produces a 
passage from the Commentaries of Origen upon Gene- 
sis. If men, however, would explain it aright, no 
such fiction could be deduced from it. He says there, 
7ta£a8oais szst; i. e. the ancients give out, or there is a 
report. Now, the term 7taga8o<*t$ is employed in Scrip- 
ture, and particularly by Paul, as denoting what is 
taught or recorded; and part accordingly of the rta^a.- 
boat,$ is taken from Scripture ; for the account of the 
place where Peter laboured is borrowed from the in- 
scription of his first Epistle, the account of the labours 
of Paul from his writings, the account of the minis- 
tration of John from the first chapter of the Apoca- 
lypse, and the rest from uncertain and uninspired 
productions. Besides the word ei%exsvav has been 
rendered, 'they divided by lot,' but not very correctly, 
for it means often what is assigned to us by Provi- 
dence; and if so translated in this passage, it would 
signify merely, that they had received as their lot 
the different places which were the scenes of their 
labours, or, in other words, ivere led by Providence 
to preach in them, for the propagation of the Gospel. 
From this misinterpretation, accordingly, has arisen the 
whole of this fiction; and yet nothing can be more 
groundless, for Paul taught in the Lesser Asia, in 
Greece, in Thrace, and in Italy, and of course could 
not have been restricted to any particular place. 
Very similar to this is another opinion, which main- 
tains that each of the Apostles was confined to a 
certain place, and which is not only without any foun- 
dation in Scripture, but contrary to the notion of an 
Apostle, who was a universal pastor, while a bishop 
was the minister only of a particular place. This last 
opinion is pretended to be drawn from a passage in 
Paul, where he calls the Churches which he had 
founded his xavw, 2 Cor. x. ;* and says that some had 
gone beyond their own xarc^t and encroached upon 
his, i, e. when he founded a Church during any of his 
journeys, he was unwilling that it should be claimed 

* Rendered by our translators " measure." 
t " Measure." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 139 

by another, for such is the import of his words, v. 15, 
not boasting of things without our measure, that is, 
of other men's labours. This xavw, therefore, could 
not be any particular portion assigned to Paul, but 
the Churches of which he had laid the foundation in 
his journey from Asia to Europe, and the honour of 
founding which he would not allow should be arro- 
gated by another."* 

I would only add farther, that Paul informs us, 
Rom. i. 5, that " he had received grace and apostle- 
ship for obedience to the faith among all nations, for 
the name of Christ." And if this was the end for 
which he had been invested with his office, can any 
one believe that he would restrict himself to the super- 
intendence of a particular district, so as that he could 
neither preach nor exercise jurisdiction beyond it? 
Besides, though he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, he 
often preached to the Jews, and addressed to the Chris- 
tians from that nation in every quarter of the world 
one of his Epistles. And, in like manner, Peter, 
though he was the Apostle of the circumcision, was 
the first of the Apostles who preached to the Gentiles, 
and must frequently afterwards, if he visited Rome, as 
Papists assert, have ministered to their churches. 
And as to the remark of Paul, that " from Jerusalem 
and round about Illyricum he had fully preached the 
Gospel of Christ, yea, and had so strived to preach 
the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest he 
should build on another man's foundation," it is not 
in the least inconsistent, with his officiating as an Apos- 
tle in every quarter of the world which it was in his 
power to visit. It is obvious from the facts which have 
been just now mentioned, and from his addressing an 
Epistle to the Christians at Rome, though he had never 
seen them, that an Apostle might both preach the Gos- 
pel and write Epistles to Churches which had been 
collected byjothers. And his preaching at Rome, after 
he arrived at that city, as well as in other Christian 
Churches which had been previously formed, clearly 

* " Opinio est Apostolos inter se consensisse de partiendo inter se 
orbe terrarum," &c. 



140 LETTERS ON 

demonstrates that it was not from any division of 
provinces which had taken place among the Apostles, 
but from some other reason, such as that it was more 
especially the business of an Apostle to plant than to 
water Churches; and, according to the prediction of 
Isaiah, quoted by Bishop Gleig, to spread the Gospel 
as extensively and rapidly as he could, that he refrain- 
ed usually " from building on another man's founda- 
tion." 

It is asserted by the Bishop and others of your de- 
fenders, that the apostleship could not be peculiar to 
the twelve and to the Apostle of the Gentiles, because 
"the words of Paul, Gal. i. 1, inform us, as clearly as 
language can express any thing, that when he wrote 
his Epistle to the Galatians, there were in the Church 
Apostles who had been ordained to their office, 6V av- 
e^Ttov, by the ministry of man. Such we think, was 
Barnabas, who, though he had been employed in the 
work of the ministry before St. Paul himself, is never 
styled an Apostle till after hands were laid upon him 
at Antioch, by the immediate direction of the Holy 
Ghost. Such certainly was Epaphroditus, whom St. 
Paul styles the Apostle of the Philippians, and who, 
according to the Doctor's man of discernment, Hilary 
the deacon, was constituted their Apostle by St. Paul 
himself,* who therefore commands them ' to receive 
him in the Lord, and to hold him in reputation.' Such 
likewise were those brethren who were styled, (2 Cor. 
viii. 23,) artoj'o^ot £xx%vj(si,u>v, 5o|at Xgi$ov, Apostles of the 
Churches, the glory of Christ. And such undoubtedly 
were Timothy, Titus, Sosthenes, and Silvanus, whom 
Paul so frequently associates with himself as his 
partners, fellow-helpers and brethren; and to the 
two first of whom he assigns such offices at Ephesus 
and Crete, as, by the confessions of all parties, evince 
them to have been of an order superior to presbyters. 
Hence it is that we read of false Apostles, (2 Cor. xi. 
13,) and of some who said they were Apostles, and 
were not, but were found liars, (Rev. ii. 2 ;) for as 

* The word9 of Hilary are, " Erat enim eorum Apostolus ab Apos- 
tolo factus." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 141 

none of those liars, could possibly pretend to be St. 
Paul, or any of the twelve, all of whom were dead 
before that period, we must of necessity infer that 
they practised their imposition upon their knowledge, 
that there were then in the Church many true Apos- 
tles, the Apostles SV mB^tlov, or by the ordination of 
man."t 

Now, I would remark upon this passage, that as it 
does not contain the slightest proof that the greater 
part of the individuals to whom it refers were denomi- 
nated Apostles in the proper sense of the word, or 
that any one of them is so designated who had not 
seen the Lord after his resurrection, and who could 
not exhibit the signs of an Apostle by working mira- 
cles, it will not warrant the conclusion, that others 
who wanted the qualifications for the apostleship, 
which were before mentioned, were elevated to that 
high office, and were appointed to be the fellow- 
labourers and successors of the Apostles. Calderwood 
imagines that an exception as to the name ought to 
be made in regard to Barnabas; for he observes, " In 
what manner he was called to the apostleship does 
not appear, and yet that he was an Apostle, and of 
the same rank with Paul, is evident from many cir- 
cumstances. He is denominated an Apostle, without 
any limitation of the meaning of the word, Acts xiv. 
4-14; and was sent to the Gentiles, with the same 
authority with Paul ; Acts xiii. Others were in their 
company, and yet Barnabas is mentioned always as 
the equal of Paul, and not merely as an assistant. 
The inhabitants of Lystra considered Barnabas as 
Jupiter, Acts xiv. 12, and Paul as Mercury. He is 
always distinguished from the other companions of 
Paul, both during their journey among the Gentiles, 
and when they went up to the Council at Jerusalem. 
And the controversy which took place between them, 
so as that they were obliged to separate, as well as 
the power of choosing as his assistant John, whose 
surname was Mark, which was exercised by Barna- 
bas, proves that he was an Apostle, and not an Evan- 

* Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. 



142 LETTERS ON 

gelist."* But if be was really an Apostle, there is 
reason to believe, that as he was one of the seventy- 
disciples, as is acknowledged by Cavet and other Epis- 
copalians, he would see the Redeemer after his resur- 
rection. And we know that he performed miracles; 
Acts xiv. 1-4, 14. As to the case of Epaphroditus, it 
is plain, not only from our own and other translations, 
but from what is acknowledged both by Whitby and 
Willet, that he is denominated arto S 'oa.o$, because he was 
the " messenger" who carried the contributions of the 
Philippians to Paul. " Concerning the instance of 
Epaphroditus," says the latter, " he is called their 
Apostle, i. e. messenger, because he brought the be- 
nevolence of that church unto Saint Paul ; Phil. iv. 18. 
And so this word •Apostle is taken both in the civill 
and canon law, in so much that letters dimissorie, 

* " Barnabas quo modo vocatus fuerat non constat. Extra ordinem 
tamen in Apostolorum numerum co-optatus est." Altare Damasce- 
num, p. 157. 

t Historia Literaria, p. 11. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Stro- 
mata, lib. ii. p. 300, makes the same statement ; " o <Te rw ifiJo/uiixovrct 
»v kai o-vvtgyos rev Uclvkgu" And in p. 273, 274, he called him an 
Apostle, <' A7ro7ro\0( Ba§v*/2ac." 

It deserves, however, to be mentioned, that Calvin, in his Com- 
mentary on Acts xiii. 4, says, " Quum Lucas Barnabam Apostolum 
cum Paulo vocat nominis signifieationem longius extendit quam ad 
primarium ordinem quern instituit Christus in sua Ecclesia : qualiter 
Paulus Andronicum etJuniam inter Apostolos insignes facit. Proprie 
autem loquendo evangelistae erant," i. e. the name of the Apostle is 
given to him in a more extended sense than when it is applied to the 
twelve and Paul. He adds, indeed, " Nisi forte quia Paulo additus 
erat collega Barnabas, utrumque in pari officii gradu statuitnus: ita 
Aposloli titulus vcre in ipsum compelct," i. e. unless, as he was added 
as a colleague to Paul, we assign to him the same rank, in which 
case he may receive the name of an Apostle. Gersom Bucer, how- 
ever, very properly observes, (Dissert, de Gubern. Eccles., p. 480,) 
that the latter remark must be taken in a restricted sense, for, says 
he, " Calvinus loquitur de ilia legatione quam Paulus interveniente 
Ecclesiae Antiochenae judicio ac modcramine cum Barnaba pera- 
gendam susceperat, non de tola Apostolatus functione, ad quam im- 
mediata prorsus auctoritate Christi e coelo consilium suum expro- 
mentis scgregatus fuerat." If Barnabas then was an Apostle, in the 
sense in which Calderwood understands the term, it is plain, from 
what is stated in the text, that he had some of the principal qualifi- 
cations for that office. But if he was called by that name, as I am 
disposed to think, merely because he was sent on the same long and 
important mission with Paul, then he was not an Apostle in the 
highest sense of the word, but only an Evangelist, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 143 

granted in the cause of appeale, by him from whom 
the appeale is made, are called (apostoli,) letters of 
dismissing or sending the cause to him to whom the 
appeale is made ; Decrett. p. 2, Cause 2, Quaest. 6, 
cap. 24, sext. decret. lib. 2."* And says the former, 
" it is noted by Theodoret and others of the fathers, 
that Epaphroditus, mentioned in this Epistle (that to 
the Philippians) as their messenger, ch. ii. 15, iv. 18, 
was also their bishop ; though, I confess, the words, tov 
drto$okov vfiuv, your Apostle, do not prove it."t And 
while it is evident to any one who peruses the Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, that the brethren referred 
to by Paul, ch. viii. 23, are represented as anoano-koi, 
as our translators were satisfied, merely because they 
were messengers \% so if we are to infer that there 

* Synopsis Papismi, p. 274. 

t Preface to his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Philippians. 

X Jeremy Taylor, 1 am aware, maintains the contrary in his Asser- 
tion of Episcopacy, p. 19, and observes in proof of it, " They are not 
called the Apostles of these Churches, to witt, whose almes they car- 
ried, but simply wxxfif/av of the Churches, viz. of their own, of which 
they were bishops. For if the title of Apostle had related to their 
mission from these Churches, it is unimaginable that there should be 
no terme of relation expressed." But how could it be necessary to 
distinguish them in that way, when it is said of one of them, v. 19, 
that he had been chosen of the Churches to travel with Paul and his 
companions with the grace or contribution which was " administered 
by the Apostle to the glory of the same Lord, and the declaration of 
their ready mind?" And as there is no term of relation coupled with 
ix.x.h»Tiav, if we are not guided by what is there mentioned, must not 
this writer's latter remark strike equally against his own interpreta- 
tion ? 2dly, He says, " It is very cleare, that although they did in- 
deed carry the benevolence of the severall Churches, yet St. Paul, not 
these Churches, sent them. And we have sent with them our bro- 
ther." &c. But how this is clear it is difficult to perceive, since it is 
stated in that verse that these Churches had actually " chosen him and 
sent him." And certainly, if he was selected for that purpose by these 
Churches, nothing can be more natural, than that, according to the 
import of the word which was adopted by our translators, though 
tiny were zealous Episcopalians, he should be denominated, on 
that account, their messenger or a7rc,<r<To\o<;. And 3dly, he remarks, 
" They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth 
with the money, but before they came thither, from whence they were 
to be dispacht in legation to Jerusalem. [If any enquire ofTitus or 
the brethren, they are the Apostles of the Churches, and the glory of 
Christ.]" But as other Churches besidos that of Corinth were send- 
ing to the relief of the saints at Jerusalem, and as these brethren had 
been appointed by them to carry their contributions before they came 



144 LETTERS ON 

were more Apostles than twelve with Barnabas and 
Paul, because there were some in the end of the first 
century " who said that they were Apostles, but were 
not," it will follow upon the same principle, that there 
must have been more Messiahs than one, because our 
Saviour foretold, that after he left the world, " there 
should arise false Christs and false prophets." Nor 
will it avail to tell us that Epaphroditus and these 
brethren are represented by the fathers as apostles 
and bishops, for they appeal in support of it to Scrip- 
ture, where no such statements are to be met with. 
And when we consider that even Barnabas discovers 
in the three hundred and eighteen male servants who 
were circumcised by Abraham, a prediction that the 
Saviour was to die upon a cross,* that Irenaeus affirms 

to Corinth, they might very properly be represented as their messen- 
gers or uTroa-Toxoty before they either arrived at that place, or left it for 
Jerusalem. 

It is stated in short, by Downam, in his Defence of his Sermon, 
book iv. p. 70, that " Apostoli, used absolutely, is a title of all embas- 
sadours sent from God, with authority apostolicall, though, kat'' e^o^nv, 
(by way of eminence,) given to Paul and Barnabas, and the twelve 
Apostles." And he farther maintains, that though when used abso- 
lutely, it is a title of all such u embassadours — yet, when used with 
reference to particular churches, it doth signifie their bishops. And 
in that sence, Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians." 
But this distinction will not hold, for Paul reminds the Corinthians, 
(1 Cor. ix. 2,) though he had the title of the Apostle, according to this 
author, xat' i^x m -> " that if he was not an Apostle unto others, yet 
doubtless he was to them" which, according to this observation, would 
reduce him to be merely the Bishop of Corinth. See, too, Causabon, 
Exercit. 14, p. 313. 

* " Learn all things more fully," soys he in his Epistle. M Abraham, 
who first practised circumcision, looking forward through the Spirit 
to the Son of God, performed this rite, receiving the mysterious infor- 
mation from three letters. For it says that Abraham circumcised three 
hundred and eighteen men of his house. What, then, was the in- 
struction which was imparted to him by this? Observe, first, the 
eighteen, and then the three hundred. The eighteen are denoted by 
;», which point out Jesus. And because the cross by which we were 
to obtain grace resembles T, which marks three hundred, therefore 
he adds three hundred. By two letters, then fore he denotes Jesus, and 
by the third his cross. He who has implanted within us the engraf- 
ted gift of his doctrine knows that no one has ever learned from me a 
more certain truth, but ye are worthy to receive it. Mxbrn ovv vulva, 
Trigt Travrav," &c; p. 29, of Cotclerius's Aposlolici Patres. How un- 
fortunate that Barnabas did not recollect that Abraham could not 
speak Greek! And how unaccountable that Clemens Alexandrinus, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 145 

that the spies who were concealed by Rahab, were 
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,* and that Origen 
interprets Balaam's ass, on which first the soothsayer 
rode, and afterwards Christ, as denoting the Church; 
the five kings of Canaan who were overcome by 
Joshua as the five senses, and the ten plagues of 
Egypt as the ten commandments, we will not feel 
surprised at their finding apostles and bishops in 
many parts of Scripture where no one else can dis- 
cover them.t Nay, so vaguely is this term employed 
by the fathers, that they apply it indiscriminately to 
the first disciples of the Saviour,± to presbyters,§ and 

and others of the fathers who are cited by Cotelerius in his notes on 
this passage, should have fallen into the same absurdity. 

* " But she received," says he, "the spies who were exploring the 
whole land, and hid them with her, namely, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost. Suscepit autem speculatores," &c. Lib. 4, cap. 
37, p. 268, cle Haeresibus. 

t " And perhaps," says he, " this ass, that is, the Church, first 
carried Baalam, but now Christ. Et forte haec asina, id est Eccle- 
sia," &c. 13th Homily on Numbers, torn. i. p. 249. 

" The five kings signify the five bodily senses, sight, hearing, taste, 
touch and smell. Quinque autem reges," &c. 11th Homily upon 
Joshua, torn. i. p. 346. 

Consult moreover his account of the little ones of the daughter of 
Zion, in Psalm cxxxvii. 9. Treatise against Celsus, lib. 7, p. 731, of 
the 2d vol. of his works. 

Are these the men whose opinions we are to value so highly, and 
from whom according to Dr. Pusey, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Glad- 
stone, we are to learn the doctrine, or government, or worship of the 
Christian Church? 

X " The word Apostle," says Valesius, upon a passage in Euse- 
bius's Eccles. Hist., lib. i, cap. 13, p. 33, where it is applied to one of 
the seventy disciples, " must be understood with greater latitude, in 
like manner, as particular nations and cities called those persons 
Apostles from whom they first received the truth of the Gospel. For 
it is not bestowed merely upon the twelve, but all their disciples, 
companions and assistants are in general denominated Apostles. Sed 
Apostoli nomen his latius sumitur," &c. The whole of this long 
note is worthy of attention. See also Jerome on Gal. i. 1, 2. 

§ It is observed by Blondel in his Apologia pro Sentent. Hierony- 
ini, p. 65, that "by many of the ancients the seventy disciples," who 
are represented as presbyters by Bishop Gleig and other Episcopa- 
lians, " are denominated Apostles, and that the secen deacons are 
distinguished by that name by Caesarcus Monachus;" Dial. iv. resp. 
292. Consult especially Theodoret upon 1 Cor. xii.; and says Origen, 
in his twenty-seventh Homily upon Numbers, torn. i. p. 312, " But 
since our Lord and Saviour chose not only the twelve, but other 

10 



146 LETTERS ON 

to females, such as the woman of Samaria, Thecla, 
and many others,* whom you will scarcely acknow- 
ledge as diocesan bishops, and yet, as far as we are 
influenced by their opinion, all of them were Apos- 
tles. 

It is contended, however, by Hooker,t that the 
Apostles must have been bishops, because the office 
of Judas, which was conferred upon Matthias, is de- 
nominated in our translation of Acts, i. 20, " a bish- 
opric," or, as it is expressed by Bilson,| "a bishop- 
ship." But even admitting this version, which was 
the basis of a similar argument to the Papist Furbiti, 
when he defended Episcopacy against Farel before 
the Council of Geneva, it will not authorize the con- 
clusion that the Apostles were diocesan bishops, or 
that the latter are Apostles and their successors. 
Bishops and presbyters, as is conceded by Downam, 
were for a considerable time convertible expressions,§ 
and consequently the bishopric which is there attribu- 
ted to Judas would be equivalent only to the presby- 
ter ate. Or though we should grant that it was 
superior, yet as the bishopric of the Apostles was uni- 
versal and peculiar to themselves, it can furnish no 
argument for modern diocesan Episcopacy. But 
it is far from being evident that this translation is cor- 
rect. The word Staxo^a occurs in the 17th verse, and 

seventy-two, therefore we are informed that there were not only 
twelve fountains, but also seventy -two palm trees ; and they too are 
denominated Apostles, as is plain from what is mentioned by Paul ; 
for when speaking- of the resurrection of the Saviour, he says that he 
appeared to the eleven, and afterwards to all the Apostles; in which 
he shows that there were others who were Apostles besides the 
twelve. Verum quloniam non solum illos duodecim," Sec. 

* Chrysostom, Theophylact and Oecumenius think that Junia, who 
is mentioned in Rom. xvi. 7, was a woman, and that she is there call- 
ed an Apostle. Theophylact, upon John iv. denominates the Sama- 
ritan woman uk-co-tokos. And in the account of the martyrdom of 
Thecla, (Grabe's Spicilegiurn vol. i. p 95,) she is distinguished by 
that name. See, too, Fronto Ducaeus upon Chrysostom, torn. i. p. 
90. Women are denominated in Scripture, Rom. xvi. 3-12, the help- 
ers and fellow-labourers of the Apostles. 

t Ecclesiastical Polity, book 7, p. 394. 

X Perpetuall Government, p. 227. 

§ Defense of his Sermon, book iii. p. 64, and book iv. p. 16, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 147 

yet our translators have not rendered it " deaconship" 
as they ought to have done, on the principle on which 
they rendered the other word, but "ministry," lest 
Matthias should have appeared to be only a deacon. 
And they were equally bound to have rendered 
£7tv6xori^ " office" or " ministry," and not "bishopric," 
though, from their leaning towards Episcopacy, they 
have adopted the latter term, with the view of repre- 
senting the Apostle as a bishop. Such is the transla- 
tion of it in the Syriac, Ethiopic, and one of the Arabic 
versions, where it is rendered " his ministry, ministe- 
rium ejus." And such is the version that has been 
given even by our translators of the passage in the Book 
of Psalms, which is quoted by Peter, Acts i. 20 ; for they 
render the Hebrew word mpa, to which sTt^xortYi corres- 
ponds in the Septuagint, Ps. cix. 8, by the word 
office; and yet, merely to serve an end, they render 
the latter term in the Acts by the word "bishopric."* 
Nay, they give a similar version of the very same 
word in Numbers, iv. 16, though the expression in 
the Septuagint be tn^xoTt^. And this version agrees 
better with the authority which was possessed by 
Judas, whose office, according to Peter, was to be 
transferred to Matthias, for as was demanded by 
Farel, " if Judas was a bishop where was his bishop- 
ric . ? "t He was only a presbyter, according to Bishop 
Gleig; and according to Archbishop Potter but a dea- 
con; and nothing, of course, could be more absurd 
than to represent him as a diocesan bishop. But if 
the term t*.<.6xoitv\ in the Acts, as in the corresponding 
passage in the Psalms, be rendered office, and not 
bishopric, the argument of Hooker, or rather of Bishop 

* As it was precisely the office of Doeg, or the unbeliever, who is 
referred to in Ps. cix. 8, that his successor was to take, so the same 
thing holds true as to the office of Judas, which was bestowed on Mat- 
thias, though it might be enlarged in respect of authority to the 
latter. 

t " Si Judas etoit Eveque, ou son Eveche?" Ruchat's Histoire de 
la Reformation dc la Suisse, torn. v. p. 115. The whole of his short 
but spirited refutation of Episcopacy, which took place before the 
Council of Geneva, before Calvin was known in that city, is deserving 
of attention. 



14S LETTERS ON 

Gauden, the author of the three spurious books of the 
Polity, necessarily falls. 

If it be maintained with Bilson, that whatever may 
be the meaning of this passage, " all the fathers with 
one mouth affirme the Apostles both might bee, and 
were bishops,"* I answer with Valesius, that when 
they are so denominated, it is not to be strictly under- 
stood.! Nay, it is observed by Whitaker, that " it 
almost borders on insanity, to assert that Peter, or 
any other of the Apostles, teas properly a bishop, 
for they possessed the very highest ecclesiastical autho- 
rity, and the office of a bishop is nothing to that of 
an apostle."% And says Dr. Barrow, " The office of 
an apostle and a bishop are not in their nature well 
consistent: For the apostleship is an extraordinary 
office, charged with the instruction and government 
of the whole world. Episcopacy is an ordinary stand- 
ing charge affixed to one place. Now, he that hath 
such a general care can hardly discharge such a par- 
ticular office, and he that is fixed to so particular an 
attendance, can hardly look well to so general a charge. 
A disparagement to the apostolical ministry for him 
(Peter) to take upon him the Bishoprick of Rome, as 
if the King should become mayor of London — as if 
the Bishop of London should be vicar of Pancrass."§ 
When the fathers, therefore, speak of the Apostles as 
bishops, they can mean merely, that wherever they 
came they exercised the authority which was latterly 
assumed by bishops, but which belonged every where 
to the apostolic office; and in this sense of their words, 
the Apostles might exercise that authority in ten, 
twenty, or fifty places, and yet they had not as many 
bishoprics. Nay, this authority might be exercised 

* Perpetuall Government, p. 226. 

t M The Apostles," says he, in his Notes on Eusebius, Eecles. Hist, 
book 3, cap. 14, " were extraordinary ministers, and were not reckoned 
in the number of bishops. Apostoli vero extra ordinem crant," &c. 

{"Hoc cnim non multum distat ab insania dicere Petrum fuisse 
proprie Episcopum, aut rcliquos Apostolos. Summam enim minis- 
terii authoritatem habucrunt. Munus Episcopi nihil est ad munus 
Apostolicum." De Pontif., Quaest. 2, cap. 15. 

§ Pope's Supremacy, p. 120, 121. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 149 

by more than one of them at once* in the very same 
place, as in the case of Paul and Peter at Rome.t 
And it is an established principle among Episcopa- 
lians, that there cannot be more than a single bishop 
in one city. No argument, accordingly, can be drawn 
from these expressions of the fathers to prove that the 
Apostles were diocesan bishops. 

But it is asserted by Bishop Gleig, and many of the 
Episcopalians of former times, that St. James at least 
must have been a bishop of this description, because 
" he is expressly said by Hegesippus, \apud Euseb. 
lib. ii. cap. 23,) to have been constituted Bishop of 
Jerusalem by the Apostles. St. Ignatius, who suf- 
fered martyrdom in the year 107, affirms (Epist. ad 
Trail.) that St. Stephen was deacon to St. James; and 
Clement of Alexandria, who nourished about the year 
192, is quoted by Eusebius, (lib. ii. cap. 1,) as saying, 
that immediately after the assumption of Christ, Peter, 
James and John, though they had been highest in 
favour with their Divine Master, did not contend for 
the honour of presiding over the Church of Jerusalem, 
but with the rest of the Apostles chose James the Just 
to be bishop of that Church. In the fourth century 
we find Jerome, a man of great learning and research, 
affirming, (de Script. Eccles.) that immediately after 
the passion of our Lord, St. James was constituted 
Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles; and St. Cyril, 
who was himself bishop of that Church in the year 
350, and therefore an authentic witness of its records, 
expressly says, Catech. 16, that St. James was the 
first bishop of that city.":}: 

Now, upon this I would remark, 

1. That it is exceedingly questionable whether he 

* Bilson, in his Perpetuall Government, p. 206, affirms, that Peter 
was Bishop, first of Antioch, and afterwards of Rome, in which he 
is supported hy a number of the fathers; and the author of the Chro- 
nicon Alexandrinum, quoted by Cotelerius on the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions, lib. 7, cap. 46, assigns to him the see of Jerusalem before it 
was committed to James. But upon the principle stated above, he 
and his brethren must have had many bishoprics. 

t Eusebii Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 1 ; lib. iv. cap. 1. 

X Anti-Jacobin, vol. f J. 



150 LETTERS ON 

was out of the twelve, or of the seventy disciples. We 
are informed of a James by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. 
book i. eh. 12,) "who was one of the seventy, and of 
the brethren of our Lord." And it is observed by 
Valesius on the place, that u many of the ancients 
were of opinion that the James who was the first 
Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve, but 
of the seventy: Thus, Gregory Nyssene, in his second 
Oration upon the Resurrection of Christ; Clemens, in 
the second Book of his Constitutions, ch. 59, and in 
the first Book of his Recognitions, near the end, p. 20; 
Dorotheus, in his Book upon the Apostles and Disci- 
ples of the Lord, and Michael Glycas, in the third part 
of his Annals." And he adds, " Paul seems to favour 
this opinion in his Epistle to the Corinthians, for 
in his enumeration of those to whom the Saviour 
appeared after he rose from the dead, after mention- 
ing the twelve Apostles, and five hundred others, he 
subjoins, afterwards he was seen by James and the 
other Apostles. Paul therefore distinguishes James 
from the twelve Apostles, and in this sense Cyril of 
Jerusalem (Catech. 4 and 14,) (to whom Bishop Gleig 
ascribes an opposite opinion erroneously,) understood 
this passage of St. Paul."* But if James was only 
one of the seventy, and consequently but a presbyter, 
it weakens exceedingly the credibility of the story, for 
there are few, I presume, who will believe that such 
an inferior minister would be raised to an honour, 
which, according to the third of the authors quoted 
by the Bishop, was superior to what was possessed 
by the chief of the Jlpostles. 

But granting, even, that he was an Apostle, I ob- 
serve, in the second place, that the authorities on 
which this report is delivered are unworthy of credit. 

The first of them is a fragment of Hegesippus, which 
has been preserved by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist, book 
ii. chap. 23,) but which, though often quoted by Epis- 

* " Multi quippe ex vcteribus Jacobum fratrem Domini," &c. The 
same, too, was the opinion of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, 
lib. 6, cap. 12, and lib. 8, cap. 4, as well as of Hammond and Bishop 
Taylor. 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 151 

copal ians, is undeserving of attention. It tells us, 
indeed, that "he received the government of the 
Church of Jerusalem along with the Apostles;"* but 
adds at the same time, that "he alone could enter 
into the Holy of Holies," though he was not the 
high-priest; "that he was buried near the Temple," 
though the Jews buried only without the gates of 
their cities ; — and that " his tomb was still standing in 
the second century/' though not a stone of Jerusalem 
was left standing upon another after it was taken by 
the Romans. If it blunder, however, as to these and 
other important particulars which are pointed out at 
length by Scaligert and Valesius,J it must be as un- 
worthy of our belief as to what it says about the for- 
mer, were it susceptible of the interpretation which 
has been put upon it by the Bishop. And if its leading 
authority be overthrown, the others must fall with it. 
The second of his quotations is not to be found in 
the editions of Ignatius by Vossius or Usher, but only 
in a corrupt edition, which every one who is beyond 
a sciolist in these matters knows to be spurious! But 
how the Bishop, who has been held out as a man of 
the highest attainments in professional learning, and 
who talks so contemptuously of the acquirements of 
his opponents, could have fallen into this mistake I 
cannot understand; and can account for it only on the 
supposition, that he copied it from the works of some 
of the older Episcopalians, from whom, in common 
with many of his brethren in the present day, he has 
often copied his arguments without due examination 
of his authorities, and being unacquainted with Igna- 
tius, though he refers to him frequently, could not 
detect the error. § 

* It is observed by Salmasius, in his Walo Messalinus, p. 193> 
that, even allowing this passage to have all the credibility which 
could be desired, it merely affirms that he received the government 
of this Church with, and not from, the Apostles, /uit* tuv a.7ror<To\cev, 
and that the same also are the readings of Theophanes and Rufinus. 

t Animadv. in Eusebii Chronol. p. 178. 

X Examine especially what he says about the contradiction between 
Hegcsippus and Josephus. 

§ It is remarkable that Bishop Tomline, who boasted of having 
examined more than sixty volumes of the Fathers, when preparing his 



152 LETTERS ON 

The third of his authorities contains its own refu- 
tation, for if Peter, James and John were previous- 
ly Apostles, and consequently superior to any local 
bishop, how can it be said that they did not "contend, 
tftiStxaleaOai" or, as it is translated by Downam,* 
" did not arrogate to themselves the honour of being 
Bishop of Jerusalem, but resigned it to James the 
Just?" Would not this, as is observed by Dr. Bar- 
row upon another occasion, when contending with the 
Papists, be like the humility of a sovereign prince, 
who would not be solicitous about the honour of 
being made "a justice of the peace ?"t or, as it is_ 
expressed by Sutclive, would it not be like the lowli- 
ness of a king, " who was not ambitious of being 
created a questor, or any other inferior magistrate?'^ 
And if it be urged with Downam that herein James 
differed from the rest, for to him at the first, before 
their dispersion, the Church of Jerusalem was assign- 
ed, while the others did not receive their provinces 
till afterwards, " neither did he travaile, as the rest, 
from one country to another, being not confined to 
any one province, and whereas they having planted 
Churches, when they saw their time, committed the 
same to certain bishops, yet James, abiding all his 
time at Jerusalem, committed that Church to no 
other,"§ I answer, it has been proved already that 
the whole of this story about the division of provinces 
is fabulous; and even those who believe it cannot 
inform us when the division took place, Photius affirm- 
ing that James was ordained by the Saviour,|| and 
Nicephorus Callistus that he obtained his diocese, first 
from the Saviour, and afterwards, as some report, 
from the Apostles.1T And if Paul be right when he 

Refutation of Calvinism, quotes a passage also from the spurious 
Ignatius, p. 288. Did he read by deputy ? 

* Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 60. 

t Pope's Supremacy, p. 84. 

t " Num rex creari solet quaestor," &c. De Pontif. lib. ii. cap. 1. 

§ Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 57, 58. 

|| Epist. 117, p. 158. 

IT Lib. ii. p. 196. Eusebius candidly acknowledges, Eccles. Hist, 
lib. iv. cap. 5, (though he lived only in the fourth century,) that he 
had not been able to discover how long James, and a number of the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 153 

appeals to his abundant labours and extensive travels, 
(2 Cor. xi. &c.) as a proof that "he was not a whit 
behind the very chiefest Apostles ;" and if the present 
honour, as well as future reward of ministers of every 
order will be proportioned to their labours, (1 Cor. hi. 
8, &c.) the second and third of these reasons must be 
completely nugatory. I shall only add, that as Stil- 
lingfleet observes, "the power of James was of the 
same nature with that of the Apostles themselves. 
And who," he demands, "will go about to degrade 
them so much as to reduce them to the office of ordi- 
nary bishops? James, in all probability, did exercise 
his apostleship the most at Jerusalem, where by the 
Scriptures we find him resident; and from hence the 
Church afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad 
as the other Apostles did, according to the language 
of their own times, fixed the title of bishop upon 
him."* The latter observation presents a satisfactory 

bishops of Jerusalem who succeeded him, were in possession of their 
sees ; and if so, can we depend on the testimony of such writers as 
affording satisfactory evidence that the alleged apostolical succession 
was never broken in the course of eighteen hundred years ? 

* Irenicum, p. 321. The passage, moreover, which is quoted by 
Bishop Gleig from Jerome's Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, 
is not genuine ; for it is observed by Erasmus in his notes upon that 
work, as well as by Dr. Cave in his account of Jerome, (Hist. Lite- 
rar., p. 221,) that the lives of James and of Simon the Canaanite, 
were added to it by some later author ! Here then we have another 
very humiliating proof of the Bishop's copying from some preceding 
writer, and of the inaccuracy with which he was chargeable amidst 
all his apparent learning. And as to the passage from Epiphanius, 
it cannot influence a single individual possessed of ordinary powers 
of reflection, for he tells us in Haeres. Nazaraeorum, that James was 
accustomed to wear a plate of gold upon his forehead, — a fiction like 
that which is related by Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. lib. v. cap. 24,) 
respecting the Apostle John, and which illustrates sufficiently the 
value of his testimony. 

Boyd, also, in his Treatise on Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 93, 
(and he makes great pretensions to extensive and accurate investi- 
gation into his authorities,) falls into the same blunder with Bishop 
Grleig, in attributing this part of the "Treatise of Ecclesiastical 
Writers" to Jerome. And he quotes, apparently with a firm convic- 
tion of its truth, a report mentioned by Chrysostom, of ''the Saviour 
having ordained, (I presume with the imposition of hands,) and ap- 
pointed his brother James the first bishop of Jerusalem," before he 
ascended to heaven! p. 92. 



154 LETTERS ON 

and natural reply to the later authorities referred to 
by the Bishop and other defenders of your ecclesiasti- 
cal polity; and I trust it will appear from what is 
stated below, that their scriptural arguments in sup- 
port of the Episcopacy of James are equally inconclu- 
sive.* 

It is observed by Downam, that "when the Apos- 
tles ceased to travaile in their olde days and rested 
in some chief citie where they had laboured, they 
were reputed bishops of that place, though some of 
them perhaps were not properly bishops."t But if 
their commission as Apostles still remained to them, 
as will scarcely be denied, it is impossible to imagine 
any good reason why even a single individual among 
them could then be degraded from his office, and re- 
duced to the rank of a bishop, merely because, from 
the infirmities of age, he was less able to travel at 
large and perform its duties. It is remarked by Bil- 
son, that " though the Apostles were more than bish- 
ops, yet they were more also than presbyters; and 
yet Saint Peter could tell how to speake, when hee 
called himselfe ovfivrpsijpvfspos, a presbyter as well as 
others.":}: He has failed, however, to show that any 
of the Apostles ever called himself avvsraaxo7toi, or a 
diocesan bishop, as well as other diocesan bishops; 
or that such an order of ministers was appointed, and 
was included, like all other inferior orders, in the 

* If James, as is observed by Stillingfleet, exercised his apostleship 
principally at Jerusalem, for a variety of reasons, and commonly 
resided there, it will explain the whole of the Scriptures which have 
been quoted by Episcopalians to prove that he was merely a bishop, 
without reducing him to that order. " And who knows not," says 
Augustine, "that the dignity of an apostle is to be preferred to that 
of any bishop? Quis nescit istum Apostolatus principatum cuilibet 
Episcopatui praeferendum ?" (De Baptismo, lib. ii. cap. I.) It will 
account, in particular, for the way in which he is spoken of, Acts xii. 
17; xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 12. And when he said, Acts xv. 19, u fu iya 
xpivai, wherefore my sentence is," he evidently laid claim to no more 
power than was exercised by Peter or any other member of the 
Council, for "the decrees" of the Council are denominated not merely 
the decrees of James, but " of the Apostles and Elders which were 
at Jerusalem." Acts xvi. 4. 

+ Defense of his Sermon, lib. iv. p. 57. 

X Perpetuall Government, p. 227. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 155 

apostolate, and consequently, it is not an argument in 
point. And it is stated by the same prelate, that 
" bishops are fastened to one place, not by the force 
of their name, but by the order of the Holy Ghost, 
who sent Apostles to oversee many places, and settled 
pastors to oversee one. And, therefore, the Apostles 
were bishops, and more than bishops, even as John 
was more than a prophet, and yet a prophet. "* But 
it is plain, that if we are to have bishops in the pre- 
sent day, because the Jipostles were bishops, as far 
as this argument is concerned, their episcopate must 
resemble that of the Apostles. The Apostles, how- 
ever, were not confined to any particular place for 
the exercise of their authority, but might officiate not 
only in fifty or a hundred places, but in every quarter 
of the world. And as no such power could be con- 
ceded either to your bishops or to any other, the 
argument which has been founded on the extraordi- 
nary authority conferred on the Apostles, when they 
founded the Church, for similar power throughout 
future ages to diocesan bishops, an order of ministers 
never mentioned in Scripture, totally fails, and you are 
not entitled to maintain, that where that order does 
not exist, there can be neither Church, nor ministry, 
nor any hope of salvation. f 

I remain, Reverend sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* Perpetuall Government, p. 227. 

t Even Bellannine, though a Papist makes the following candid 
statement of the difference between apostles and bishops. " Bish- 
ops," says he, "have no part of the true apostolic authority. Apos- 
tles could preach and found churches in every part of the world, as ap- 
pears from the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Bishops cannot 
do this. Apostles, as all confess, could write canonical Epistles. 
Bishops cannot do this. Apostles had the gift of tongues and the 
power of working miracles. This does not belong to bishops. Apos- 
tles had jurisdiction over the whole Church. This is not possessed by 
bishops. Nullam habent episcopi partem verae Apostolicae auctori- 
tatis," &,c. De Pontif. Roman., lib. iv. cap. 25. 



156 



LETTER XII. 

Bishop Bilson represents the' argument for Episcopacy, from the powers 
conferred on Timothy and Titus, as "the main erection of the Episcopal 
cause ;" and Bishop Hall declares, that if it fails "he will yield the cause, 
and confess that he has lost his senses." — None of the Fathers during the 
first three centuries represent them as diocesan bishops; and Willet, Stil- 
lingfleet, and Bishop Bridges acknowledge them to have been extraordi- 
nary ministers, or Evangelists. — Nature of the office of Evangelists, as 
illustrated by Scripture and the writings of the Fathers. — Different from 
that of diocesan bishops, and superior to it. — Diocesan bishops never said 
to have been associated with Fvangehsts or Apostles in any act of juris- 
diction or government, though Presbyters repeatedly took part with them 
in such acts. — No notice of diocesan bishops as an order existing in their 
days. — The argument in every point of view inconclusive. 

Reverend Sir, — The next argument in support of 
diocesan Episcopacy is derived from the powers which 
are represented as having been committed to Timothy 
and Titus; and from the terms in which it is men- 
tioned by two of the most eminent and learned of your 
prelates, it would seem that they attached to it the 
very highest importance, and considered it as irre- 
sistible. " This, indeed," said Bilson, " is the main 
erection of the Episcopal power and function, if our 
proofes drawn from these ministers stand, or subver- 
sion, if your answere be good. For if this faile, wel 
may bishops claime their authoritie by the custome of 
the Church; by any divine precept expressed in the 
Scriptures they cannot."* And said Bishop Hall, 
" I demand what is it that it stood upon, but these 
two particulars, the especiall power of ordination, and 
power of the ruling and censuring of presbyters; and 
if these two be not clear in the charge of the Apostle 
to these two bishops, one of Crete, the other of Ephe- 
sus, I shall yield the cause, and confess to want my 
senses."! I propose, accordingly, to examine "this 
main erection of the Episcopal function," the over- 
throw of which, if I shall succeed in accomplishing it, 
ought to lead you to abandon that lofty claim of divine 

* Perpetuall Government, chap. xiv. p. 300. 

t Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right, book 2, p. 26. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 157 

right for your ecclesiastical polity which you have 
built upon it; and if you possess the candour of the 
last of these prelates, "to yield the cause/' though 
you should not, like him, if you maintain it any longer, 
" admit that you would want your senses." 

This argument, then, (and as I am anxious to do it 
justice, I have selected the most comprehensive state- 
ment of it that I have met with, namely, that by 
Bishop Downam,) has been proposed in the following 
terms : 

"But we are also," says he, "to show the places 
where, and the persons whom the Apostles ordained 
bishops, and first out of the Scriptures. For by the 
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothe and Titus, it is appa- 
rent that hee had ordained Timothe Bishop of Ephe- 
sus, and Titus of Creet; the Epistles themselves being 
the verie patterns and precedents of the episcopalL 
function. For, as the Apostle had committed unto 
them episcopal 1 authoritie, both in respect of ordina- 
tion and jurisdiction, which in the Epistles is pre-sup- 
posed, so doth he by those Epistles informe them, and 
in them all bishops, how to exercise their function. 
First, in respect of ordination, as Tit. i. 5; I left thee 
in Creet, that thou shouldst ordaine presbyters in every 
citie, as I appointed thee. 1 Tim. v. 22, Impose hands 
hastily on no man ; neither be partaker of other men's 
sinnes. Secondly, in regard of jurisdiction, not onely 
over the people, but also over the presbyters; appoint- 
ing them to be both guides and censurers of their doc- 
trine, as 1 Tim. i. 3, I required thee to continue in 
Ephesus, that thou shouldest commaund some that 
they teach no strange doctrine, neither that they attend 
to fables, &c. 2 Tim. ii. 16 ; Tit i. 10-11, hi. 9 ; and 
also judges of their person and conversation, as 1 Tim. 
v. 19, 20, 21, Against a presbyter receive not an accu- 
sation, but under two or three witnesses," &c.* 

Now, upon this I would remark, in the first place, 
that even admitting their interpretation of the different 
passages contained in this extract, they have no right 

* Sermon on the Function of Bishops, p. 72-74. 



158 LETTERS ON 

to claim similar powers to ordinary ministers, like 
diocesan bishops, in the present day, unless they had 
proved that Timothy and Titus were only ordinary 
ministers of the very same order, and were to be suc- 
ceeded by others till the end of the world. It is this 
which constitutes the very strength of the argument, 
and as it has never yet been proved, but only taken 
for granted, and as I think that the contrary is estab- 
lished by evidence which cannot be controverted, the 
argument fails. You profess to respect the opinions 
of the fathers, and I challenge you to produce a single 
passage from the writings of any of them, during the 
first three centuries, in which they say that they con- 
sider them to have been bishops. Dr. Whitby could 
not do it,* and I have been equally unsuccessful, and 
I shall wait till I see whether you are more fortunate. 
Chrysostom, in a passage which is quoted from him 
by Mocket, Archbishop Abbot's chaplain, acknow- 
ledges that they were evangelists.t Such, too, was 
the opinion of Willet, who says, " It is most like that 
Timothie had the place and calling of an evangelist, 
whose office was to second the Apostles into their 
ministerie, and to ivater that which the Apostles had 
planted."! "They were but very few," says Stil- 
lingfleet, " and those in probability not the ablest, who 
were left at home to take care of the spoil ; the strong- 
est and ablest, like commanders in an army, were not 
settled in any troop, but went up and down, from this 
company to that, to order them and draw them forth ; 
and while they were, they had the chief authority 
among them, but as commanders of the army, and not 
as officers of the troop. Such were evangelists, who 
were sent sometimes into this country, to put the 
churches in order there, sometimes into another ; but 
wherever they were, they acted as evangelists, and 
not as fixed officers. And such were Timothy and 
Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made to it, 
as will appear to any that will take an impartial sur- 

* Preface to the Epistle to Titus. 

t Tractat. de Politia Anglican. 

X Append, to the 5th General Controv., Quest. 3. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 159 

vey of the arguments on both sides."* And says 
Bishop Bridges, whom no one will suspect of a lean- 
ing to Presbyterianism, " The same Philip is called an 
Evangelist ; so was Timothie ; 2 Tim. iv. 5. Such 
was Titus, Silas, and manie other. This office also, 
with the order of the Apostles, is expired, and hath 
no place. Likewise, as wee doo plainlie see, that the 
gifts of healing, of powers or miracles, and of diverse 
toongs, have long since ceased in the Church ; so the 
offices of them ivhich were grounded upon these gifts 
must also cease, and be deter mined."} And what is 
still more important, such, likewise, is the express 
declaration of Scripture, for Paul enjoins Timothy, 
(2 Tim. iv. 5,) to "do the work of an evangelist ;" 
and it is evident that the duties which he prescribes 
to him are the same with those which were assigned 
to Titus. 

The office of an Evangelist was the third of the 
three great extraordinary offices which were instituted 
by the Redeemer, for founding and organizing the 
primitive Church, and which are represented by Paul, 
(Eph. iv. 11,) as distinct from that of the ordinary 
standing ministry, which was to be occupied by pas- 
tors and teachers. Those who were invested with 
the former office, though properly the helpers or as- 
sistants of the Apostles, whose function was to cease 
with that of their masters, approached very nearly to 
the latter in rank, acted as their substitutes on many 
occasions, and when executing their commands, seem 
to have been permitted to exercise almost equal au- 
thority. Hence, while they are described by Tertul- 
lian as "apostolic men," J and by Jerome as "the 
sons of the Apostles,'^ Augustine designates them 
very happily by a most expressive name, signifying 
literally, " the substitutes of the Apostles, who were 
almost equal to them."|| Sometimes, as in the case 

* Irenicum, p. 340. 

t Defence of the Government of the Church of England, book i. 
p. 68. 

t Lib. 4, Ackers. Mar. " Viri Apostolici." 

§ Filii Apostolorum ; Comment, in Iesai. cap. 65. 

|| Suppares Apostolis ; Scrmo 146, de Tempore. 



160 LETTERS ON 

of Timothy, they appear to have received an imme- 
diate and supernatural call ; for Paul refers to " the 
prophecies which went before respecting him;" inti- 
mating, probably, that it was the will of God he should 
be appointed to his office, as the Holy Ghost said to 
the prophets and teachers at Antioch, " Separate me 
Barnabas and Paul for the work whereunto I have 
called them." We know, too, that they were endow- 
ed with the power of working miracles, for it is men- 
tioned, (Acts viii. 6-8,) that " the Samaritans' with 
one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip 
(the Evangelist) spake, hearing and seeing the mira- 
cles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with 
loud voice, came out of many that were possessed 
with them; and many taken with palsies, and that 
were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in 
that city." And we have reason to believe, that the 
same supernatural gifts which were possessed by him 
were communicated to the rest of the evangelists ; in 
addition to which, Bilson admits, that in common 
with the prophets, they " had these two (other) gifts, 
the revealing of secrets, and discerning of spirits, 
(though in lesse measure than the Apostles,) which 
served chiefly to distinguish who were fit or unfit for 
the service of Christ's Church."* Sometimes, as in 
the case of Philip, when he preached in Samaria, they 
came before the Apostles, and founded churches, and 
the Apostles succeeded them, and organized these 

* " Nam cum primum ecclesiae plantarentur," says Bilson, in the 
Latin translation of his Treatise on Church Government, p. 125, 
" etiam illi qui credebant in divinis Scripturis et mysteriis adeo ty- 
rones fuerunt et rudcs ut ad populum docendum et regendum nulli 
fuerint idonei, nisi qui Apostoli, per manuum suarum impositionem 
variis Spiritus Sancti donis instruerent, et ad illud munus exequen- 
dum aptos efficerent ; in Samaria recens ad fidem conversa prorsus ad 
Evangelii praedicationem et ecclesiae gubernationem inermes et inepti 
fuerunt donee Petrus et Joannes eorum aliquos Spiritus Sancti vir- 
tute, per manuum impositionem donantes alios prophetas, alios pas- 
tores, alios doctores, mirabiliter effecerant; quemque donis ad func- 
tionem necessariis adornantes." So little did he see in this passage, 
which evidently does not refer to confirmation, to warrant that rite 
which none of the Apostles or of the ministers of the Apostolic Church 
ever performed, but which is one of those human inventions that are 
practised in the Scottish and English Episcopalian Churches. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 161 

churches; and as the last writer admits, laid then- 
hands on some of the converts, not to confirm them, 
as Episcopalians assert, but to communicate to them 
spiritual gifts, that they might be qualified immediately 
for becoming the pastors of these churches.* And at 
other times evangelists came after the Apostles; and 
when the latter had planted, the former, as in the 
case of Apollos and Titus, "watered and set in order 
the things which were wanting, ordaining elders in 
every city." Such is the view which was presented 
of their office in the New Testament, and it is con- 
firmed by a well-known passage of Eusebius. "At 
the same time," says he, '-'flourished Quadratus, who, 
together with the daughters of Philip, was famous for 
the gift of prophecy, and besides them, many others 
who occupy the principal place among the successors 
of the Apostles. These persons being the venerable 
disciples of such men, built up the churches in every 
place of which the foundation had been laid by the 
Apostles, promoting more and more the preaching of 
the Gospel, and scattering through the world the salu- 
tary seed of the kingdom of heaven. For many of 
the disciples of that period, whose minds were in- 
flamed by the word with the most ardent attachment 
to the true philosophy, fulfilling the commandment of 
their Saviour, divided their substance among the poor, 
and having been sent forth with authority, performed 
the office of evangelists to those who had never heard 
the word of faith, being most desirous to preach Christ 
unto them, and to deliver to them the writings of 
the divine Gospels. These men having laid the 
foundations of the faith in some remote places, having 
ordained also others to be pastors over them, and 
having committed to their care the cultivation of 
what they had themselves begun, hastened to other 
countries and nations, being accompanied by the 
grace and power of God."t It seems impossible, 
therefore, to deny that the office of evangelists was 

* See preceding note. 

t " T«" eTs kzt* Tst/Tcuj fisLKufA^avroov ku.i KcJ/xto?, 1 ' &c. Eccles. 
Hist., lib. iii. cap. 37. 

11 



162 LETTERS ON 

extraordinary and temporary, like that of the Apostles, 
and not only different from, but greatly superior to 
that of modern diocesan bishops. And it is certainly 
contrary to all the acknowledged rules of reasoning to 
found an argument on the powers of ministers of a 
higher order, (the Suppares Apostolorum,) who were 
richly endowed with supernatural gifts, and who were 
able to perform miraculous works, for similar powers 
to inferior ministers, who are destitute of the one, 
and who cannot perform the other, — ministers too, of 
an order to which there is no allusion in the Epistles 
which are addressed to Timothy and Titus, or in any 
other part of the sacred volume, and who in no sense 
of the word, when it is used as a distinctive official 
title, can be called evangelists. 

I will be told, however, by Bishop Gleig, that "the 
word fuayyEMs^, rendered an evangelist, is unques- 
tionably derived from eva^yi-k^io-, but that word, says 
Dr. Campbell, relates to the first intimation that is 
given to a person or people, that is, when the subject 
may be properly called news. Thus, in the Acts, it 
is frequently used for expressing the first publication 
of the Gospel in a city, or a village, or amongst a 
particular people. If this be essential to the radical 
import of the verb, of which, indeed, there can be no 
doubt, then it follows that an evangelist, considered 
as a distinct character, could only be one, whether 
apostle, elder, deacon or layman, who fi rst carried the 
glad tidings of the Gospel to an individual or a peo- 
ple. Hence it is that of the seven deacons none is 
called an evangelist but Philip, because he alone of 
the whole number is mentioned as having carried the 
glad tidings of the Gospel beyond the limits of Judea, 
within which those tidings were first told by Christ 
and his Apostles. Hence, too, it appears, that those 
whom St. Paul says Christ, after his resurrection, 
gave as evangelists fox the work of the ministry, must 
have been men miraculously inspired with the know- 
ledge of the Gospel, and impelled by the same heavenly 
impulse to communicate that knowledge to those to 
whom it was news. But in this sense Timothy and 



PtJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 163 

Titus could not be evangelists to the Churches of 
Ephesus and Crete, because St. Paul had preached 
the Gospel in those churches before them, and had 
even ordained presbyters in the Church of Ephesus/'* 
Now, upon this I would remark, that according 
to the principle which is here laid down, (and it is 
only an old evasion of our reply to the argument for 
diocesan Episcopacy from the powers committed to 
Timothy and Titus,) an evangelist was not a distinct 
office-bearer intrusted with a particular function in 
the primitive Church, but any one who first made 
known the Gospel in a city or country, whether it 
was a woman, or a layman, or a deacon, or a pres- 
byter, or a prophet, or an Apostle. Nay, the angels 
must have been evangelists, when they brought the 
glad tidings to the shepherds of Bethlehem; and An- 
drew and Philip, even before they were baptized, 
when they brought them to Peter and Nathanael; and 
the Samaritan ivom an, when she communicated them 
to her townsmen. Nothing, however, can be more 
inconsistent than this with the description which is 
given of an evangelist, either in Scripture or in the 
writings of the fathers. In the former, as has been 
mentioned, he is represented as an extraordinary 
minister, with a particular office, distinct from that 
of any other minister; for, says Paul, Eph. iv. 11, 
" he gave some, apostles, some, prophets, some, evan- 
lists, and some, pastors and teachers." But how he 
could be said to have given only some to be evange- 
lists, if they did not constitute a separate order, and if 
every minister of every order hi that early age, and 
every minister throughout future ages, and even every 
man, and woman, and child, who first made known 
these glad tidings to a single individual, was really an 
evangelist, and performed all that was meant by that 
word, as Downam and Bishop Gleig and others con- 
tend, I cannot comprehend. And how could Saravia 
blunder so egregiously, as to infer from this passage, 
that " there were distinct orders among the ministers 

* Ninth vol. of the Anti-Jacobin Review. 



164 LETTERS ON 

of the Gospel, the Apostles being prophets, evange- 
lists, teachers and pastors; and the evangelists being 
prophets, pastors and teachers," &c* Philip is called 
an evangelist, not immediately after he preached the 
Gospel in Samaria, but long afterwards, Acts xxi. 8; 
and not because he was the first who preached the 
Gospel in that city, but because "having used the 
office of a deacon well, he obtained for himself a good 
degree," and was promoted to the office of an evan- 
gelist. Besides, as evangelists not only sometimes 
went before the Apostles, and were the first who 
preached the Gospel in a place; but as Willet and 
Eusebius state, sometimes also came after them, like 
Apollos, (1 Cor. iii. 6,) "and seconded them in their 
ministerie, watering that which they had planted," 
or organizing the churches which they had founded, 
and " setting in order the things which were want- 
ing," the latter was a part of the office of an evange- 
list, which Timothy and Titus could do; and which 
office, in all its parts, Timothy was expressly enjoined 
to perform; 2 Tim. iv. 4. This objection, therefore, 
to the order of extraordinary early ministers, to which 
we assign these distinguished fellow-labourers of the 
Apostles, is utterly groundless. And if they are to be 
ranked among the evangelists, no claim can be urged 
from the powers which they exercised in their high 
office for similar powers to diocesan bishops, who are 
never said to have been associated with them while 
they lived, either in ordination or jurisdiction, and 
who are never represented as the ministers who were 
to succeed them in the exercise of their authority after 
they left the world. 

It is plain also from the fact, that neither Timothy 
nor Titus was confined to any particular diocese, but 
was constantly employed in travelling with the Apos- 
tles and assisting them in their labours, or in planting 
or watering different churches, that they were evan- 
gelists and not bishops. 

* Gradus Ministror. Evangel, consec. ita distinctos fuisse," &c. ad. 
cap. i. Bez. de divers, grad. Minist. Evangel. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 165 

* Episcopacy," says Dr. Barrow, " is an ordinary 
standing charge, affixed to one standing place, and 
requiring a special attendance there * But evange- 
lists, as is stated by Eusebius, after having founded or 
organized churches in one place, hastened to another. 
It is impossible, accordingly, to read what is said of 
Timothy and Titus in the New Testament, without 
perceiving that they were evangelists, for they had 
no more any fixed and settled charge than the Apos- 
tles themselves, but were constantly moving from 
place to place. Thus, it is mentioned respecting Timo- 
thy, that as soon as he was ordained to the ministry, 
(Acts xvi.) he travelled with Paul through Phrygia, 
Galatia, Asia and Mysia, from which they came to 
Philippi, and after remaining there for a time he was 
sent to Corinth, where he preached to that Church, 
(2 Cor. i. 19,) and then returned to the Apostle. They 
went together from Philippi toThessalonica and Berea; 
and Paul having proceeded to Athens, Timothy soon 
followed him, and was by and by despatched again 
to Thessalonica, to confirm and water the Church in 
that city. Michaelis thinks that the Apostle wrote 
his first Epistle to him when he left him at Ephesus, 
after he himself was obliged to leave it, (Acts xix.) to 
re-establish order in that Church, to fill the ecclesias- 
tical offices, and to oppose the false teachers;" and he 
considers it as evident from what is mentioned in the 
third chapter, that " no bishops had then been ap- 
pointed among them." This took place when Timothy 
was young, (1 Tim. iv. 12,) or, according to the opin- 
ion of the most eminent critics, when he was about 
twenty -six or twenty-seven years of age, and several 
years before the last interview of the Apostle with the 
presbyters of Ephesus, (Acts xx.) whom he addresses 
as bishops, v. 28, without representing them as under 
the Episcopate of Timothy. And as not a word is 
said of his being the Bishop of Ephesus, or of his 
being bound to reside there; so his stay there was 
short, for he accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, followed 
him to Rome, (Colos. i. 1,) was imprisoned there, and 

* Pope's Supremacy, p. 82. 



166 LETTERS ON 

liberated shortly before the Apostle was liberated, 
(Heb. xiii. 23,) from which he proceeded very pro- 
bably to Philippi. And the same observation applies 
to Titus, whose residence in Crete appears to have 
been short; for Paul tells him, (ch. iii. 12,) that "when 
he sent Tychicus or Artemas to him, he wished him 
to come to him to Nicopolis," and who laboured also 
among the Churches in Macedonia and Dalmatia, as 
well as at Rome and Corinth.* If the scene, however, 
of the labours of these ministers changed so frequently, 
and if they were constantly moved from place to place 
at the pleasure of the Apostles, and as Hilary expresses 
it in his own most apposite language, " had no cathe- 
dral seat, evangelizabant sine cathedra," what must 
we think of this main e?*ection of diocesan Episco- 
pacy, since it is evident from these facts that Timothy 
and Titus were not bishops, but were among the chief 
of the evangelists? 

It has been asserted, I am aware, by Downman, 
that, " although upon special and extraordinary occa- 
sions they were by the Apostles called to other places, 
as his or the Churches' necessity required; yet Ephesus 
and Crete were the place of their ordinary residence, 
where they both lived and died. Paul," says he, 
" willeth Timothe, (1 Tim. i. 3,) *£ocr i usi»/a&,permanere, 
(the word is significant,) to abide still, or to continue 
at Ephesus ; and he left Titus not to redresse things 
in Creet for a brunt, and so to come away, but that 
he shuld (Tit. i. 5,) srtiSi^ecoaai continue in reparasing 
what should be amisse, and still keep that Church as 
it were in reparation."! But nothing can be deduced 
from the term fTtiStw^wcrcu which will warrant that 
statement; for, as is acknowledged by Anselm of Can- 
terbury, it denotes merely that he was to perfect the 
organizing of the Churches which had been begun by 
Paul; X and the way in which he was to do this was 

* 2 Cor. vii. 5, 6; 2 Tim. iv. 10; 2 Cor. vii. 13, 15; viii. 6, 
12, 18. 

j Sermon, p. 76. 

t "At ea inquit, quae desunt corrigas, id est, ut ea quae a me cor- 
recta sunt, et necdum ad plenam veri lineam sunt rcdacta a te corri- 
gantur, et normam acquahtatis recipiant." 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 167 

by "ordaining presbyters in every city." And not a 
word is to be met with about his continuing there any 
longer; and for any thing that is afterwards recorded 
respecting him, one might as consistently conclude 
with Aquinas, from 2 Tim. iv. 10, that he was Bishop 
of Dalmatia, as infer from this passage, with modern 
Episcopalians, that he was Bishop or Archbishop of 
Crete. And as to the term n^oafisivat, 1 Tim. i. 3, so 
far from proving that Timothy was to reside perma- 
nently at Ephesus, it does not furnish the smallest 
ground for that assertion. It signifies in general to 
remain, but whether for a shorter or longer time, must 
be ascertained from other circumstances. Sometimes 
it denotes continuance in a place for a number of days, 
(Acts xviii. 18;) sometimes for three days, (Math. xv. 
3 ; Mark viii. 2 ;) and sometimes for scarcely three 
hours, (Judges hi. 15, Septuagint.) And as such is 
its general signification, so it is evident that in the 
passage in question it can denote only a temporary 
residence ; for if Ephesus had been allotted to Timo- 
thy as his diocese, Paul would not have " besought,'' 1 
but would have commanded him " to remain in it." 
" How ingenious," says Daillee, " is the passion for 
the crosier and the mitre, which in a few plain words 
has discovered such mysteries! For where is the 
man, who, using only his natural understanding with- 
out the fire that affection imparts to it, would have 
ever found out so many mitres as those of a bishop, 
and an archbishop,* and a primate in these two expres- 
sions, Paid besought Timothy to remain at Ephe- 
sus? Who, without the aid of an extraordinary 
passion, could have divined a thing so fine and so 
marvellous, and could have imagined, that, to entreat 
a man to abide in a city, ivas to appoint him the 
bishop of it, archbishop of the province, and primate 
of the whole country? Without exaggeration, the 
cause of these hierarchical gentlemen must be reduced 
to great straits when they are obliged to have recourse 
to sudi pitiful arguments. As to myself, considering 
matters coolly, I should have concluded on the con- 

* Some of the fathers make him an archbishop. 



168 LETTERS ON 

trary, from the Apostle beseeching Timothy to remain 
at Ephesus, that he could not have been Bishop of 
Ephesus. For to what purpose would it be to entreat 
a bishop to remain in his diocese ? Is not this to 
beseech a man to continue in a place to which he is 
tied down? I should not have thought it strange if 
he had been entreated to leave it, had there been need 
for his services elsewhere. But to beseech him to stop 
in a place of which he had the charge, and which he 
could not quit without displeasing God and neglect- 
ing his duly, to say the truth, is a request which is 
not a little extraordinary, and which evidently sup- 
poses that he had not his duty much at heart, since he 
needed to be besought to do it. But however that 
may be, it is very certain that to beseech a man to 
remain in a place does not signify that he is consti- 
tuted the bishop of it."* It cannot therefore be inferred 
from these passages, that either Timothy or Titus was 
merely a bishop. And when it is recollected, that at 
the time when some of the fathers began to represent 
Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, and say that he was 
appointed to his see by Paul, they assert that another 
bishop, named John, was appointed to the same bish- 
opric by the Apostle John, who was Primate of all 
Asia, in which also others associate Timothy with 
him,t it increases the absurdity, and shows the despe- 
rate state of the cause which depends on such support, 
and yet the defenders of which are continually boast- 
ing that theirs are the only Apostolic Churches, out 
of which you cannot enjoy the Christian ministry, nor 
a covenanted title to the blessings of salvation. 

It will not follow that Timothy was not an evange- 

* Sermon I, sur l'Ep. 1. a Timothee, p. 22. 

t It is said in the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. 7, cap. 46, that 
"when Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus by Paul, John was 
made bishop of it by the Apostle John, t«c ft E-pvrov Tijuo&tos fxtv b?ro 
Tlavhcvy laiciwuc efs v^ tjuov ^co-awou" Cotelerius indeed attempts to 
show that it means only that John succeeded Timothy, and rejects the 
idea stated in Metaphraste apud Syrium, and in the martyrdom of 
Timothy, Codex 254, Bibliothecac Photii, that John the Apostle came 
after Timothy in the Episcopate of Ephesus and Asia. But he allows 
that he was Primate of Asia during the bishoprics of Timothy and 
the other John, and the whole statement appears very ridiculous. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 169 

list, as has sometimes been alleged, because he was ex- 
horted (1 Tim. iv. 13,) to "give attendance to reading." 
Daniel did so, (Dan. ix. 2, &c.) though he was a pro- 
phet; and Paul did so, though he was an Apostle, (2 
Tim. iv. 13;) and while I admit that his learning has 
been frequently overrated,* yet he seems to have been 

* It has been asserted by Cave, in his Life of this Apostle, c. 8, p. 
428, that he was not only acquainted with Jewish learning, but with 
the philosophy and the more elegant accomplishments of the Greeks, 
and that he was thus prepared for being the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
and for fighting the most learned of the Greeks with their own wea- 
pons. And the same was the opinion of Witsius, (Meletem. Leid. in 
Vita Pauli,) of Pfaffius, (Dissert, de Apostolo Paulo, p. 2, 3,) of Wind- 
heim, (Dissert, de Paulo, Gentium Apostolo, contra Th. Morganum, 
Hal. 1745,) and of many others. But it is proved by Thalmannus, in 
an able Dissertation de Eruditione Pauli Apostoli, edit. Lipsiae, 1769, 
that while he had a very considerable portion of Jewish learning, 
there is no satisfactory evidence of his high attainments in Grecian 
literature. His being educated at Tarsus, where, according to Strabo, 
(Geograph. lib. xiv. p. 463,) there were more celebrated schools of 
philosophy than at Athens or Alexandria, will not prove it; for, as is 
observed by that author, p. 22, though a Jew in the present day were 
to be born and educated at Halle, or Leipsic, it would not follow that 
he must have studied eloquence, or philosophy, or mathematics, under 
any of the professors in these cities. His style furnishes no evidence 
of it; for this, as is acknowledged even by Cave, (Hist. Liter., p. 8,) 
is pronounced by the ancients to be rough and unadorned ; and if it 
be a little superior to that of his fellow-apostles, it is sufficiently ac- 
counted for upon other principles by Thalmannus, p. 45-47. It is 
not supported by what is said of him by Longinus in the Codex Evan- 
geliorum Bibliothecae Wticanae; for, as is remarked by Fabricius, 
Biblioth. Graeca, lib. iv. cop. 31, p. 445, that fragment seems to have 
been the production of a Christian. And it cannot be established by 
his quoting, in a few instances, some of the Grecian poets. As is 
observed by Bengelius, Gnomon ad Tit. i. 12, he never names Aratus, 
Menander, or Epimenides; and all certainly who have picked up and 
repeat sentiments from authors, especially when these sentiments 
have become proverbs, are not to be considered as acquainted with 
their writings. How many, for instance, of the Romans may have 
been able to repeat such sentences as these, "Homo sum, humani 
nihil a me alienum puto;" "Mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas 
rcgumquc turres," and yet never have perused the writings of Terence 
or Horace? And, in like manner, says Werenfelsius of Paul, (Dis- 
sert, de Stilo Nov. Test. torn. i. Oper. p. 315,) " Potuit haec a Graecis 
ennvcrsis acccpisse, potuerunt hi versus, certe TraQot/Mzv redolentes in 
vulgus noti esse." In short, it was contrary to the rules of the Phari- 
sees that any of their sect should study Grecian literature. (See 
Josephua, Antiq. Jud. 20. 9; Talmud in Tract. Mesch. Sotah. c. 9, n. 
14; and the ^emara, on the place where it is announced, that "who- 
soever taught his son the philosophy of the Greeks was to be ac- 



170 LETTERS ON 

continually adding to his knowledge, and unquestion- 
ably the same thing might be useful to an evangelist. 
Nor will it at all affect the title of Timothy to be 
considered as an evangelist, as Thomas imagines, that 
he is commanded " not to neglect the gift that was in 
him, which was given him by prophecy, with the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery," for "the clerk 
of the peace," says he, "might as well make justices, 
or captains make colonels," as a court of presbyters 
could make "an evangelist."* Bilson supposes that 
Timothy was ordained twice, first as a presbyter ; and 
if this was done, as is stated, 1 Tim. iv. 14, by a court 
of presbyters, it proves that presbyters may ordain 
presbyters; and next as an evangelist, by the Apostle 
Paul, for he admits that he was an evangelist. "Every 
one," says he, "by the ancient discipline of Christ's 
Church, before hee could come from ministring to gov- 
erning in the Church of God, received thrice, or, at the 
least, twice imposition of hands. The like, if any man 
list, he may imagine of Timothie, that the good report 
which the brethren of Lystra and Iconium gave of 
him unto Paul, whereupon hee would that Timothie 
should goe foorth, grew upon triall of his faithfull and 
painfull service in a former and lower vocation, for 

cursed.") Consult Wagenseil ad 1. c. edit. Surenhus, p. 307; Light- 
foot, vol. ii. p. 706; and Wetstein upon Acts vi. 1. Nor is it any 
objection to this, that Josephus, though a Pharisee, acquired this 
learning, for it was after he had been carried captive to Rome, and 
was not under his former restrictions. And not only has this view 
of the attainments of Paul been taken by Melancthon, (Disput. Orat. 
in Epist. ad Rom.) by Grotius, (Comment on 1 Cor. ii. 1,) by J. A. 
Turretine, (Dissert. Theolog. torn. i. sec. 11,) and by Ernesti, (Opusc. 
Crit. et Phil. p. 201 ;) but, as is proved by Thalmannus, by Origen 
in his Philocal. c. 15, by Chrysostorn, in his 1st and 3d Homilies on 
the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says that Paul was 
unacquainted with Grecian learning; and in his 4th Homily on the 
2d Epistle to Timothy, where he observes, " Hebraicam tantum lin- 
guam calluisse, Graccam ignorasse ;" and by Jerome, Epist. ad Algas, 
qu. 10, and Epist. ad Hedypiam, qu. 11. But though he had not that 
measure of Grecian learning which has frequently been ascribed to 
him, he unquestionably had a more than ordinary acquaintance with 
Jewish learning, for he profited in the knowledge of it, as he tells us, 
" above his equals ;" and he seems to have laboured to increase it, by 
reading whenever he had an opportunity. 

* Answer to James Owen on Ordination, p. 17, 18. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 171 

which hee had imposition of hands, and that mooved 
Paul to take him along with him, and when hee saw 
his time, to impose hands on him for a greater calling. 
For it is not credible that Paul would impose hands 
on him at the first step, to place him in one of the 
highest degrees, being so young as he was, without 
good experience of his sober and wise behaviour in 
some other and former function."* There appears, 
however, as far as we can judge from what is men- 
tioned in Scripture, to have been only one ordination 
performed by a court of presbyters, at which, if Paul 
was present, and took part in it, he must have acted 
only as a presbyter, and, as Daillee suggests,! officiated 
as its president. And certainly, if the Apostles sat in 
the Council of Jerusalem along with the presbyters, 
and assumed no more authority than they, and issued 
its decrees in the name of the presbyters as well as 
their own, why might not Paul act as a presbyter 
along with other presbyters at the ordination of Timo- 
thy? And if an army, as we know, have often made 
an emperor, though they were greatly his inferiors; 
and if prophets and teachers, or presbyters, made 
Barnabas an Apostle at Antioch, as Bishop Gleig 
acknowledges; for " it was after that/' he says, "that 
he was called an Apostle;" it would be exceedingly 
strange if a court of presbyters, guided by the pro- 
phecies which went before respecting Timothy, point- 
ing him out as a fit person for the high office which 
he was destined to fill, could not ordain him to be an 
evangelist. 

I presume that no one in the present day will main- 
tain that Timothy and Titus were bishops, the first of 
Ephesus, and the second of Crete, because they are dis- 
tinguished by these titles in the postscripts of the Epis- 
tles which were addressed to them. Dr. Mill admits that 
these postscripts were added by Eustathius, bishop of 
Suica, in Egypt, in the middle of the fifth century ; and 
Home confesses, that whoever was the author, he was 
either grossly ignorant, or grossly inattentive. And 

* Perpctuall Government, p. 94. 

t Sermon 31, sur l'Epitre 1. a Timothec, p. 296, 297. 



172 LETTERS ON 

it might as consistently be asserted, on the authority 
of the author of the Scholastic History, that Timothy 
ivas Bishop of Lystra, because he resided there for 
some time, and laboured in the Gospel, as that he was 
Bishop of Ephesns. If it be urged with Downam, 
that, to prevent us from imagining that what was ad- 
dressed to these ministers, " was spoken to them as 
extraordinary persons, (whose authority should die 
with them,) but to them and their successors to the 
end of the world, Paul straightway chargeth Timothe, 
that the commandements and directions which he gave 
him should be kept inviolable, (1 Tim. vi. 13, 14,) 
untill the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and 
therefore, by such as should have the like authority 
unto the end;"* I reply with Stillingfleet, "this is 
easily answered ; for, first, it is no way certain what 
this command was which Paul speaks of. Some un- 
derstand it, of fighting the good fight of faith; others, 
of the precept of love; others, most probably the sum 
of all contained in this Epistle ; which I confesse im- 
plies in it, (as being one great part of the Epistle,) 
Paul's directing of Timothy for the right discharg- 
ing of his office. But, granting that the command re- 
spects Timothy's office, I answer, secondly, it manifest- 
ly appears to be something personal, and not suc- 
cessive, or at least nothing can be inferred/or the ne- 
cessity of such a succession from this place which it 
was brought for, nothing being more evident than 
that this command related to Timothy's personal ob- 
servance of it. And therefore, thirdly, Christ's appear- 
ing here is not meant of his second coming to judg- 
ment, but it only imports the time of Timothy's de- 
cease. So Chrysostom, mx& * £ *n$ t^stys, i^xe,* tr^ 
f|o5ov.t So Estins understands it, usque ad exitum 
vitae,J and for that end brings that speech of Augus- 
tine, Tunc unieuique veniet dies adventus Domini, 
cum venerit ei dies, ut talis hie extat, qualis judican- 
dus est illo die.§ And the reason why the time of his 

* Sermon p. 74. t "Till the end, till thy departure." 

t " Till the end of life." 

§ " Then the day of the coming of the Lord will arrive to each, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 173 

death is set out by the coming of Christ, is iva fxa'K^ov 
avtov 8csy •£(,%%, as Chrysostom, and from him Theophy- 
lact, observes, to incite him the more both to diligence 
in his work, and patience under sufferings, from the 
consideration of Christ's appearance. The plain mean- 
ing of the words, then, is the same with that of Rev. 
ii. 20, Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give 
thee a crown of life. Nothing, then, can be hence 
inferred, as to the necessary succession of some in 
Timothy's office, whatever it be supposed to be."* 

And if it be alleged, again, with Downam, that 
"their being evangelists did not hinder them from 
being bishops, when ceasing from their travailling 
about, they were assigned to these particular church- 
es ; and that this is proved by the testimony of Zuin- 
glius, who saith (in Ecclesiaste,) that Philip the Evan- 
gelist, who had beene one of the deacons, was after- 
wards Bishop of Caesarea ;"t I answer, that if Timothy 
and Titus were not made bishops till they had ceased 
from travelling, then as, they travelled frequently 
after they they had performed what was prescribed 
to them at Ephesus and in Crete, they could not, 
even upon this author's own showing, have been 
bishops of either of these places. Besides, it is 
never stated in Scripture that any evangelist in his 
old age was assigned permanently to any particular 
place, and reduced to the rank of a diocesan bishop ; 
which, as Dr. Barrow observes, if it were to take place 
in regard to an Apostle in his old age, " would be 
such an irregularity, as" if any of your bishops, or of 
the humbler bishops of the Scottish Episcopalians, 
who now arrogate to their Church the lofty title of 
the Reformed Apostolic Catholic Church in Scotland, 
was in his old age " to be made a deacon !"% 

when the day shall come to him on which he will be judged as he is 
in this world," referring probably to the judgment which is spoken 
of, II. b. ix. 27. 

* Ircnicum, p. 183, 184. Consult, too, Dr. Whitby on the place. 

t Defense of his Sermon, p. 96, lib. 4. 

t Pope's Supremacy, p. 120. 

Mark is denominated by some of the latter fathers first Bishop of 
Alexandria, but it is merely in accommodation to the sentiments 



174 LETTERS ON 

I have only further to remark, with regard to the 
powers of ordination and jurisdiction, which were 
committed by Paul to Timothy and Titus, that it will 
by no means entitle you, though you were able to 
prove that they alone exercised them in Ephesus and 
Crete, to claim similar powers to any of your bishops. 
Both of them were of an order very near to that of 
the Apostles, appointed for special and temporary 
purposes, and far superior to diocesan bishops. And 
it would cetrainly be strange if the ministers of a 
lower order, even admitting you could shoiv from 
other passages that they were instituted by Christ, 
should exercise powers belonging to a higher order, 
without producing any warrant permitting them to 
assume them after that order had. ceased, or any evi- 
dence of their having been allowed to exercise them 
along with these ministers ivhile that order existed. 
And it is still more strange that these powers should 
be claimed for that lower order, since you have never 
yet proved from other parts of Scripture, that it was 
appointed by the Redeemer, either before or after he 
ascended to heaven. And at the same time I would 
observe, that it has never yet been demonstrated that 
Timothy and Titus exercised these powers by them- 
selves alone, without allowing presbyters to unite 
with them in ordination or jurisdiction, or that, when 
they exercised them along with presbyters, they did 
it in any higher character than that of presbyters. 
Paul, indeed, tells Timothy (1 Tim. v. 22,) that he was 
to " lay hands suddenly on no man;" and Titus, (ch. 
i. 5,) that he had " left him in Crete, that he might 
ordain Presbyters in every city, as he had appointed 
him." But it no more follows that either of these 
evangelists was to exercise this power alone in Ephe- 

about bishops which prevailed in their own times ; for we have un- 
doubted evidence, that alter he founded that church, he still retained 
his office as an evangelist, travelling about and preaching the Gospel, 
and founding churches in other places. It is stated that he did so 
after this in nearly the whole of Egypt, and in many parts of Africa, 
by the writer of the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius; by the Legend. 
Aut. cap. 57 ; by the Centur. Magdeburg, Cent. i. lib. 2, cap. 10 ; and 
by Baronius in his Annals, torn i. p. 695. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 175 

sus and Crete, than it would follow from the words 
of our Lord to Peter, (Mat. xvi. 19,) "I give unto 
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," that the 
power of which they were the symbol was committed 
exclusively to that */3postle. Theophylact says of the 
latter, " although it is said only to Peter, I will give 
thee, yet the same was given to all the Apostles." 
And the same is the language of many others of the 
fathers, and of all Protestant expositors. Not a sin- 
gle instance of the ordination of a presbyter by one 
individual, whether he was an apostle or evangelist, 
can be produced from the New Testament; and if it 
was never done even by an apostle, as far as appears 
from Scripture, on what ground are we to believe 
that it was done by either of these evangelists? Be- 
sides, if presbyters ordained an apostle at Antioch, as 
Bishop Gleig admits, and if Timothy was ordained by 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, it is 
plain, as Willet observes, that it " cannot be gathered 
from these words, lay hands suddenly upon no man, 
that Timothie had this sole power in himself, for the 
Apostle would not give that to him which he did not 
take to himselfe, who associated unto him the rest of 
the presbyterie in the ordaining of Timothie, 1 Tim. 
iv. 14, but he speaketh to him as the chiefe." Nor 
would Timothy and Titus find any difficulty in pro- 
curing presbyters, to unite with them in ordaining 
other presbyters, since Paul had preached in Ephesus 
for more than two years, and had laid his hands 
(Acts xix.) on twelve men, who not only spoke with 
tongues, but prophesied, and who having been admit- 
ted into the ministry, could take part with Timothy 
in ordaining others; and Titus would be assisted by 
Zenas and Apollos, who were with him in Crete, (Tit. 
iii. 13.) And though the Apostle says to Timothy, 
(1 Tim. v. 19,) "against a presbyter receive not an 
accusation, but before two or three witnesses," it will 
not prove; that he alone was to judge of it. For, as 
Willet again remarks, "though he speak by name to 
Timothie, directing his speech to him as the chiefe, 
yet he excludeth not the rest, as the Holy Ghost writing 



176 LETTERS ON 

to the angel and chiefe pastors of the seven Church- 
es, Apoc. ii. 3, implyeth the rest of the ministers and 
Church there, as may appear by the matter of the 
Epistles, wherein the faults of the whole Church are 
reproved, and their virtues commended." And says 
Whitaker, " to receive an accusation is to report the 
evil to the Church, and to bring the culprit to judg- 
ment, and publicly to reprove him, which may be done 
not only by superiors, but by equals and inferiors. 
Thus, in the Roman Republic the knights sat in judg- 
ment not only upon plebeians, but upon senators and 
patricians."* We know, too, that presbyters exer- 
cised jurisdiction along with Timothy at Ephesus, for 
Paul speaks of them (1. Tim. v. 13,) as " worthy of 
double honour because they ruled well, especially if 
they laboured in the word and doctrine." And they 
are represented as exercising the same power among 
the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. v. 12, 13,) and Hebrews, 
(Hebrews xiii. 7.) And it is mentioned as one of the 
qualifications of the bishop or presbyter whom Timo- 
thy was to ordain at Ephesus, that he must be "blame- 
less, one that ruled well his own house; for if he 
knows not how to rule his own house, how should he 
take care of the Church of God?" or, as Dr. Ham- 
mond paraphrases the words, " he would be unfit to 
be made a governor of the Church of God" And 
says Paul to Titus, "a bishop" or presbyter "must be 
blameless as the steward of God," or, as the same 
commentator paraphrases it, " as becomes one that 
hath the government of God's family entrusted to 
him." But if presbyters were associated with evan- 
gelists in jurisdiction as well as ordination, (and they 
would not otherwise be represented as governing the 
Church,) you have no right to assert that these 
powers were exercised exclusively by the latter. If 
presbyters, too, were permitted to share in them then, 
when that order existed, they must retain them still 
when that order has ceased, as government must al- 
ways continue in the Church, and they alone remain, 

* Accusationem admittere, &c. Controv. 4, quaest. 1, cap. 2. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 177 

while the former have ceased to exercise them along 
with them. And as you have failed to prove that 
diocesan bishops existed at that time, in the early- 
Church, or were permitted, like presbyters, to unite 
with evangelists in ordination or jurisdiction, they can 
have no right at least from divine institution to 
exercise these powers in the present day; and "the 
main erection of Episcopacy" having failed, I leave it 
to candid judges to say, whether you and your follow- 
ers, instead of telling us that out of your churches 
there is no salvation, would not act a wiser and more 
consistent part, if you were to confess with Bilson, 
" that though bishops may found their claims on the 
custome of the Church," which I shall by and by 
examine, " on any divine precept expressed in Scrip- 
ture they cannot."* 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* " It is doubtful," says Salraeron, though a Roman Catholic, 
(Disput. 1. on 1 Tim.) "if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; for al- 
though he preached and ordained some to the ministry there, it does 
not follow that he was the bishop of that place ; for Paul preached 
there above two years, and absolved the penitents, and yet he was no 
bishop. Add, that now and then the Apostle called him away unto 
himself, and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his Epistle. 
And in the second Epistle he commands him to come unto him 
shortly. Timothy was also an evangelist of that order; Eph. iv. He 
gave some Apostles, some evangelists," &,c. So that Dorotheus says 
in his Synopis, " that Timothy preached through all Greece, but stay- 
ed at Ephesus, not to be bishop, but that in the constituted Church of 
Ephesus he might oppose the false Apostles. It appears, therefore, 
that he was more than a bishop, although for a time he preached in 
that city as a pastor, and ordained some to the ministry. Hence it is 
that some call him Bishop of Ephesus" 



12 



178 



LETTER XIII. 

Examination of the argument for diocesan Episcopacy, from the Angels of 
the seven Asiatic Churches. — Refutation of it as stated by Milner, who 
would restrict the superintendence exercised by bishops to ten or twelve 
congregations, a plan which would create in England a thousand diocesan 
bishops. — Refutation of it as stated by Bishop Gleig, who represents these 
Angels as single individuals and prelates. — The name Angel borrowed 
from one of the ministers of the Jewish synagogue, who had no authority 
over other synagogues, and was not the sole or chief ruler of his own syna- 
gogue. — Remarkable blunder of Bishop Russel respecting the Angel of 
the synagogue and its other officers, for ivhich he is praised by the Rev. 
Mr. Sinclair. — If the Angels of the Churches were single persons, no 
evidence that they were diocesan bishops. — Three arguments to prove 
that they were not single individuals, but representatives of the whole 
ministers of the different Churches, as each of the stars mentioned tnRev.i. 
represented the whole of the ministers of each of the Churches, who shed 
their united light on the members. — Striking remarks of Lord Bacon on 
the unprecedented powers vested in bishops, and on their being allowed 
to exercise some of them, without any appeal, by lay-chancellors. 

Reverend Sir, — The last argument in support of 
diocesan Episcopacy, which has been advanced by 
the advocates of your ecclesiastical polity, has been 
taken from the angels of the seven Asiatic Churches. 
And certainly, if its strength corresponded to the con- 
fidence with which it has been stated, at least by 
some of these writers, it would be perfectly irresistible. 
And there is none of them who has mentioned it with 
more of that feeling, as if it could not be controverted, 
than even the excellent Milner. Having been accus- 
tomed to Episcopacy from his earliest days, and 
imagining that it was indispensable to the order and 
well-being of the Christian Church, he talks of this 
argument and of the system which he rests upon it, in 
the following terms: 

" Toward the end of the first century, all the 
Churches followed the model of the mother Church of 
Jerusalem, where one of the Apostles was the first 
bishop. A settled presidency obtained, and the name 
of angel was first given to the supreme ruler, though 
that of bishop soon succeeded. That this was the case 
with the seven Churches of Asia is certain. The 
address of the charges to him in the Book of the Reve- 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 179 

lation demonstrates his superiority." After which 
he adds, " Could it be conveniently done, it may per- 
haps be true, that a reduced Episcopacy, in which the 
dioceses are of small extent, as those in the primitive 
Church undoubtedly were, and in which the president 
residing in the metropolis exercises a superintendency 
over ten or twelve presbyters of the same city and 
neighbourhood, would bid the fairest to promote order, 
peace, and harmony."* 

Now, upon this I would remark, that it is certainly 
surprising he should have believed the fable which 
has been already refuted, about one of the Apostles 
having become bishop of Jerusalem; though it must 
be evident to any one who is at all acquainted with, 
ecclesiastical history, that with all his piety he is some- 
times too credulous. Such a descent from the office 
of an Apostle, whose diocese was the world, Mat. 
xxviii. 19, to that of a bishop, whose diocese was to 
be Jerusalem, as Jewel observes, would have been 
in direct opposition to the command of Christ, and 
would have been as extraordinary, as Dr. Barrow 
remarks, as if the King of Great Britain were to 
become Lord Mayor of London. Besides, it is not 
supported by any testimony which is worthy of belief, 
and which could warrant him to employ it as the 
basis of an argument ; and I shall by and by endeavour 
to show that his other assertion, " that toward the end 
of the first century all the Churches followed the mo- 
del of the mother Church of Jerusalem," and had dio- 
cesan bishops, is equally unfounded. Writers in the 
fourth and fifth centuries might call these early minis- 
ters bishops, according to the custom of their own 
times, but no historical evidence can be produced of 
their exercising the powers of your bishops; and as 
has already been stated, not a father can be mentioned 
from the first three centuries who even denominates 
Timothy or Titus a bishop. I would further notice, 
thai .is he does not attempt to prove, but merely 
ailinns, that the charges to the angels demonstrate 
their superiority to the other ministers of the Asiatic 

* Vol. i. p. 161, 162. 



180 LETTERS 0>T 

Churches, I shall pass them over at present, and con- 
sider them afterwards as they are referred to by 
another of the defenders of Episcopacy. And as to 
the extent of the dioceses which he would assign to 
bishops in the present day, I would briefly observe, 
that while none of these angels, admitting them, for 
the sake of argument, to be diocesan bishops, would 
have under his care the ministers of ten or twelve of 
the neighbouring churches, a proposal to reduce the 
bishoprics of your Church within similar limits, and 
to oblige your prelates to preach, and to restrict their 
dioceses to ten or twelve parishes, is a measure of 
reform, which, though it assimilate them more nearly 
to the primitive bishops, would call forth feelings of 
the greatest consternation throughout the whole of 
your Establishment. Archbishop Usher, you are 
aware, brought it forward formerly, and it did not 
succeed, and it is less likely to be accepted if it were 
to be brought forward at present. In the diocese of 
Lincoln, in place of one you would have nearly a 
hundred bishops; and throughout the whole of your 
dioceses they would amount to a thousand. Your 
bishops would cease, as in other Protestant countries, 
to be spiritual lords, for they would outnumber the 
peers; or they would sit in the Legislature by a few 
representatives chosen from among themselves ; or, 
as others might prefer, they would be represented 
both in the Lords and Commons, (and the privilege 
might be extended to other Protestant Churches,) by 
some intelligent and experienced members of your 
communion, chosen, like the representatives of your 
three Universities, by your bishops and dignitaries, 
and a select number of your inferior clergy.* But it 

* " I have heard," says the author of a pamphlet published in 1641, 
" that divers abbots voted in Parliament as anciently as bishops. Yea 
this answerer hath informed me that anciently the bishops were 
assisted in Parliament," before it was divided, " by a number of mitred 
abbots and priors;" p. 33. And Sir Edward Coke informs us in his 
Commentary on Littleton's Institutes, sec. 138, that "he found in 
the Parliament rolls twenty-seven abbots and two priors." In all 
causes affecting the Church which come before the Supreme Court 
of Denmark, two bishops are now allowed to sit in that court. In 
all other causes they are not permitted to judge. 



PTTSETITE EPISCOPACT. 181 

is obviously unnecessary to speculate on these matters, 
as such a proposal as is thrown out by Mr. Milner 
will never be entertained. And yet it is upon this 
ground alone that he pleads for Episcopacy; for, as it 
exists in your Church with all the overwhelming 
duties of your dioceses, and the secular duties which 
devolve on your bishops, the superintendence which 
they exercise must in a great measure be nominal. 

Bishop Gleig however contends, like most Episco- 
palians, that the angels of these churches were single 
persons, acting, not as Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen had 
supposed, as the moderators of the presbyteries belong- 
ing to the churches, but in their individual capacity ; 
and he thinks it plain, both from the name bestowed 
on them, and the duties required from them, that they 
were diocesan bishops. " Had Dr. Campbell," says 
he, "taken the trouble to search the Old and New 
Testaments on this occasion, and to compare Scrip- 
ture with Scripture, he would very soon have found 
that the application of the name ayytxosto a person in 
the ministry or priesthood is by no means peculiar to 
the mysterious book of the Apocalyse. Thus (Mai. 
ii. 7,) the Jewish high-priest is by the Seventy called 
ayysxos Kr^tot; rtavtoxgato£o$ ; and St. Paul, in his Epis- 
tle to the Galatians, says, " that he was received by 
them as an angel of God." Now, as the Jewish high- 
priest, compared with the other priests and Levites, 
was certainly much more than a mere chairman, and 
as no man will pretend that in the Churches of Gala- 
tia, St. Paul was only the first among his own order, 
is it not natural to infer that the angels of the seven 
Churches were likewise something more than mere 
chairmen or moderators, especially as the charges 
given to them cannot be reconciled with equity upon 
the hypothesis advanced by Dr. Campbell? If indeed 
they were vested with the authority which the Apostle 
gave to Timothy and Titus over the Churches of Crete 
and Hphesus; if they had each a right to take cogni- 
sance of heretical doctrine, to admonish the heretic, 
-mil, in case of pertinacity, to reject him from the com- 
munion of the Church; if they only had authority to 



182 LETTERS ON 

ordain presbyters and deacons in the several cities of 
Asia; if they were enjoined not to admit any man to 
the order of deacons till after competent trial, nor to 
ordain an elder or presbyter till after he had acquitted 
himself well in the deaconship; if they were autho- 
rized to receive accusations against presbyters, and to 
rebuke them before all when found guilty ; if such 
were the powers of the Asiatic angels of the Churches, 
and such their duty resulting from those powers, then 
indeed, but not otherwise, were the orthodox and 
virtuous angels of the Churches of Pergamos and 
Thyatira properly reproved for suffering to be taught 
under their jurisdiction the doctrines of the Nicolai- 
tanes, of Balaam, and of Jezebel/'* 

But upon this statement of the argument, (and I 
have selected it as one which was greatly praised 
soon after it was published, and as one of the most 
plausible which I have met with,) I would beg to 
submit the following observations: 

No argument can be founded on the term angels as 
applied to the ministers of these Churches, to show 
that they were invested with jurisdiction over the rest 
of the ministers, and the instances to which the bishop 
refers in proof of this are not in point. It is not of 
the high-priest, as he alleges, that Malachi says, ch. ii. 
7, that " the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and 
the people should seek the law at his mouth, for he 
was the messenger" or angel "of the Lord of Hosts," 
but of every priest; and it is astonishing that a man 
who was lauded for his high professional attainments 
by his brother prelates, and especially for this article, 
should not have seen it. Lowth accordingly remarks 
on the passage, " As it was the priests' duty to under- 
stand the meaning of the law, so the people were 
required to resort to them for instruction in any diffi- 
culty that arose concerning the sense of it; see Lev. 
x. 11, Deut. xxii. 9. For this reason the Levites had 
forty-eight cities allotted to them among the several 
tribes, that the people might more easily consult them 
upon every occasion. See Numb. xxxv. 7." Besides, 

* Anti-Jacobin Review, vol. ix. 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 183 

if it had been the high-priest who was meant, it would 
not have served the bishop's purpose, for he had no 
jurisdiction over the other priests ; and though pre- 
sident of the Sanhedrim, he had only his casting vote, 
and was even himself subject to their authority. And 
when Paul says to the Galatians, ch. iv. 14, that they 
had "received him" at first "as an angel of God," he 
surely never intended to tell them that they had received 
him as a bishop! for he was far higher than a bishop, 
but as if he had been really a messenger sent to them 
immediately from the heavenly world, just as he says, 
ch. i. 8, "But though we or an angel from heaven (sure- 
ly not a bishop) preach any other Gospel to you let him 
be accursed." And certainly it is impossible to see 
any thing in the term angel itself which is applied to 
these ministers, or in the corresponding term of stars 
which is employed respecting them, or in what is said 
of them in the latter character, (ch. i. 20,) which 
would lead us to suppose that they were superior to 
the other ministers of these churches, or had any juris- 
diction over them. Every other minister of these 
Asiatic Churches who preached the Gospel, and who 
shed spiritual light on the minds of the members, had 
as good a title to the metaphorical name of an angel 
who brought the message of reconciliation, and every 
one of them who communicated that light to the name 
of a star, as a diocesan bishop ; and compared at least 
to modern prelates, who seldom preach, he had a pre- 
ferable claim. And I cannot believe that it was pre- 
lates alone, whom, as the stars of these churches, the 
Redeemer held in his right hand to protect and defend 
them, any more than that it was they alone who were 
angels or messengers, because it was to them alone 
that he had committed the message of salvation. 
Such is the view which is given of these terms by 
some of the more candid Episcopalians, and in par- 
ticular by Dr. Lightfoot, a man who had few equals 
in scriptural knowledge and Jewish learning; and if 
he be right in his account of the source from which 
the first of these terms was taken and applied to the 
ministers of Christian churches, it overthrows the 



184 LETTERS ON 

argument which has been founded on it, for any thing 
like superiority on the part of the angels of the Asia- 
tic churches over the rest of the ministers of these 
churches. " Besides these/' (the three rulers of the 
synagogue,) says he, " there was the public minister 
of the synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care 
about the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, 
if there were not others to discharge that office. This 
person was called Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of the 
church, and the Chazan or bishop of the congregation. 
Certainly the signification of the word bishop and 
angel of the church had been determined with less 
noise, if recourse had been made to the proper foun- 
tains, and men had not vainly disputed about the 
meaning of words, taken I know not whence. The 
service and worship of the Temple being abolished, 
as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship 
and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, 
which was moral, into the Christian Church ; to wit, 
the public ministry, public prayers, reading God's 
word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the 
ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the 
angel of the church, and the bishop which belonged 
to the ministers in the synagogues."* As the She- 
liach Zibbor, then, or angel, or bishop of the syna- 
gogue, had no authority beyond the single congre- 
gation in which he ministered, and as he exercised 
that authority along with the rulers of the synagogue, 
(though he was not the chief ruler,)t it is plain that 

* Vol. ii. of his Works, p. 133. 

t Bishop Russel, in his Sermon on the Historical Evidence for 
Episcopacy, p. 31, attempts to construct an argument for that form 
of ecclesiastical polity, from the term angel of the churches, but blun- 
ders exceedingly respecting the place of the Sheliach Zibbor in the 
Jewish synagogue, as well as of the other officers. And yet the Rev. 
Mr. Sinclair, in his Dissertation on Episcopacy, p. 43, says that he 
coincides with him, and that " on all questions connected with Jew- 
ish antiquity, the Bishop's views must be acknowledged of the highest 
authority." " This mode of phraseology, it deserves to be remarked," 
says Dr. Russel, " is borrowed from the usages of the Jewish syna- 
gogue, where the person who presided in divine worship, usually 
called the ruler of the synagogue, was not unfreqnently denominated 
the angel of the congregation. He had under him, also, two classes 
of ministers, corresponding to the priest and deacon of the Christian 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 185 

the application of the name angel to the minister of 
each of these Asiatic churches, even supposing him 
to be only a single person acting on his own individual 
capacity, furnishes no proof that he had authority 
over the ministers of other congregations or Chris- 
tian synagogues, and much less would it justify any 
bishop in the present day for being invested with 
authority over a hundred or a thousand ministers, 
and as many congregations. 

As to the censure which is pronounced on some of 
the angels for suffering false teachers, and their being 
enjoined to pursue a different course, it remains to be 
proved, that the acts which they were blamed for not 
performing, and which they were commanded to per- 
form afterwards, were acts of jurisdiction. And though 
this should be allowed, it will by no means follow 
that these angels might not have been the moderators 
of the presbyteries of these churches, and that letters 
might not be addressed to them, as in the present day, 

assemblies; and, in other respects, there are so many points of resem- 
blance, as to remove all doubt that the ecclesiastical model recom- 
mended by the Apostles was raised upon the platform of the Levitical 
establishment." 

Now, upon this I beg to remark, in the first place, that the syna- 
gogue was not a part of the Levitical establishment, but was intro- 
duced afterwards, so that in the Bishop's argument there is evidently 
a non-sequitur, there being something in the conclusion which is not 
in the premises. 2dly, It will surprise the reader to learn, after the 
encomium pronounced on Dr. Russel by Mr. Sinclair, that though 
there were three rulers in every synagogue, none of them was ever 
called the angel of the synagogue, or its bishop, but they were entirely 
distinct from that minister, as every one knows who has directed his 
attention to Hebrew antiquities! See Dr. Lightfoot; Godwin's Moses 
and Aaron, p. 71. Home, in his Introduction, vol. iii. p. 242, says, 
•' Next to the A£%t<ruvcrya>yo?, or ruler of the congregation, was an offi- 
cer, whose province it was to offer up public prayers to God for the 
whole congregation : hence he is called Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of 
the church, because, as their messenger, he spoke to God for them." 
His other duties are described by Dr. Lightfoot, who also represents 
him as next to the rulers, or to the chief ruler. And, in the third 
place, so far were there from being " two classes of ministers" under 
him, corresponding to presbyters and deacons, there was only one, 
according to Home, who had the charge of the sacred books ; or, 
according to Lightfoot, (who does not mention that officer,) three 
deacons, two of whom collected the alms for the poor, and the third 
distributed them. 



186 LETTERS ON 

as the chairmen or representatives of these presbyte- 
ries, expressive either of censure or approbation, which 
they were to communicate to the presbyters; for, as 
was long ago remarked by an old writer, "why may 
not the Senate be saluted in the Consuls, Parliament 
addressed in the Chancellor, or the House of Com- 
mons in an epistle to the Speaker?"* But as I do not 
consider them as acting in their individual capacity 
either as the moderators of their presbyteries, accord- 
ing to Dr. Campbell's hypothesis, or as diocesan bish- 
ops, the objection which has been urged against them 
in the former character, though it had possessed a 
force of which I conceive it to be destitute, would not 
apply to my opinion. And as to the assertion of the 
bishop, that these angels must have been authorised 
to ordain presbyters and deacons, it is unnecessary to 
notice it, as not a word is said in any of the Epistles 
respecting the exercise of such powers by any of these 
ministers. 

I would farther remark, that "the titles of angels 
and stars," so far from denoting "single men," as 
Archbishop Potter maintains,! "which," he thinks 
"puts it beyond dispute" that they were bishops' 
appear to be intended to represent the whole of the 
ministers of these early churches. Such was the 
opinion of the celebrated Dr. Henry More, who says 
" Methinks it is extremely harsh to conceit that these 
seven stars are merely the seven bishops of any par- 
ticular churches of Asia, as if the rest were not sup- 
ported or guided by the hand of Christ ; or as if there 
were but seven in his right hand, but all the rest in his 
left. Such high representations cannot be appropria- 
ted to any seven particular churches whatsover " 
"And by the angels," he says, "according to the 
Apocalyptick style, all the angels under their presi- 
dency are represented or insinuated."^ And this 
opinion is confirmed when we look into the epistles 
which were addressed to these angels, and into the 

* Principal Forrester on Episcopacy, p. 73. 

+ Church Government, p. 147. 

X Exposition of the Seven Churches, Works, p. 724. 



PT7SEY1TE EPISCOPACY. 187 

first chapter of the Book of Revelation. Each of 
these ministers is represented, indeed, in the singular 
number, as a star and an angel. But each of the 
seven churches is represented also in the singular 
number, chap. i. 20, as one candlestick with different 
branches, shedding light around them, in the cities 
where they were placed, though as Sclater thinks he 
has proved in his Original Draught of the Primitive 
Church, and as Episcopalians in general affirm, it 
was composed, at least, of several congregations. 
But if each of the candlesticks represented the ivhole 
of the congregations in the city, which formed toge- 
ther one Church, why may it not be supposed that 
with equal propriety the whole of their ministers may 
be described as forming one star, the different parts 
of which, combined in one great luminous body, dis- 
pensed those rays of spiritual light which illuminated 
these congregations, and that the ivhole of their min- 
isters were represented by one angel or messenger, 
cis they all delivered the same message of salvation 
to guilty men? And if there be any difficulty in 
conceiving that one angel should represent the whole 
of the ministers of the congregations in each of these 
cities, as they would amount probably to four or six, 
we have only to turn to the 14th chapter of this very 
book, v. 6, where John tells, that " he saw another 
angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the ever- 
lasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the 
earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, 
and people;" which angel represents not merely a 
single minister, though the term literally denotes, 
like each of the angels of the churches, a single 
individual, but thousands of ministers. Since it is 
evident, therefore, that each of the angels of the seven 
churches may possibly be intended to represent the 
whole of the ministers of the congregations which 
were connected with it; and since it is as probable 
that this was the case, as that each of the candlesticks 
represented perhaps four or six congregations forming 
that Church, it is proper that we should examine the 
epistles themselves, and ascertain whether the angels 



188 LETTERS ON 

are to be considered as addressed in their individual 
capacity as diocesan bishops, or as representing the 
whole of the ministers of these churches. And that 
the latter is the character in which we are to view 
them, will appear, I apprehend, from the following 
considerations: 

In the first place, if the angels are addressed only 
as single individuals, and not as the representatives of 
the whole of the ministers of the different churches, 
then the rest of the ministers are never referred to at 
all. Now, this certainly would be a strange omission 
in epistles descriptive of the state of the churches, 
when you consider their number as contrasted with 
a single diocesan bishop, and their corresponding in- 
fluence on the members of the churches for good or 
evil. In Ephesus, especially, the church seems to 
have been large from its very commencement, for the 
value of the magical books burnt by its members is 
said to have been fifty thousand pieces of silver. And 
at the time of Paul's last visit to them they had a 
number of presbyters, whom he calls upon to perform 
the duty of bishops; (Acts xx. 22.) Nor were they 
the bishops or presbyters of the neighbouring church- 
es, as some have affirmed, for, as Dr. Whitby observes, 
on Acts xx. 17, this is plainly contrary to the text. 
And as he farther says, " Chrysostom, St. Jerome, 
Theodoret, GEcumenius and Theophylact knew no- 
thing of Paul's sending to any other bishops besides 
those of Ephesus; for otherwise they could not have 
argued, as they do from this place, that these persons 
could not be bishops, properly so called, because 
there could be only one bishop in one city." And 
if such was the number of the presbyters in that 
Church at that early period, we have reason to be- 
lieve that it would be still greater at the time when 
this epistle in the Book of Revelation was addressed 
to the angel. If the angel, however, did not represent 
these numerous presbyters, or the whole of the minis- 
ters and was merely a single person like a diocesan 
bishop, then they are never noticed for good or evil in 
this Epistle, though their conduct must have had a far 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 189 

more powerful influence than that of the bishop. And 
this is the more unaccountable, that it is asserted by 
Episcopalians the people are noticed in two of the 
Epistles, while not a word is said in any of them re- 
specting the presbyters. 

2dly, If the angel of the Church of Ephesus be ad- 
dressed as a single person, and not as the representa- 
tive of the whole of the ministers, is it not farther in- 
explicable, that because he alone had left his first 
love, the Redeemer threatens, if he did not repent, to 
extinguish that church, or remove its candlestick out 
of its place? And this is still more surprising, if 
Timothy, who according to Pererius and Alcazar, was 
then alive, was the bishop or angel of that church. 
But if the angel represented not merely a single pre- 
late, but the whole of the numerous ministers of that 
church, and if all of them had sunk into that grievous 
state of spiritual declension which is described in the 
Epistle, and if the people, as is probable, followed 
their example, we can perceive a reason for such a 
denunciation. I infer, therefore, from this circum- 
stance that the angel could not possibly be a single 
person ; but must be addressed as the representative 
of the whole of the ministers of that early church. 

And in the third place, no one can look into the 
Epistles to the angels of the Churches in Smyrna and 
Thyatira, without perceiving that they address them 
sometimes in the singular, and sometimes in the plural, 
which is incompatible with the idea that the angels 
were intended to represent only single persons like 
diocesan bishops. Thus, the Redeemer says to the 
angel of the former Church, " I know thy works, and 
tribulation, and poverty, but thou art rich. Fear none 
of those things which thou shalt suffer : behold, the 
devil shall cast some of you (fywj/) into prison, that ye 
may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: 
be thou faithful unto the death, and I will give thee 
a crown of life." And he says to the angel of the 
Church in Thyatira, " I know thy works, and charity, 
and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy 
works; and the last to be more than the first;' 7 (Rev. 



190 LETTERS ON 

ii. 19.) After which he adds, v. 24, but unto you I 
say, (in the plural, tyttt) and unto the rest in Thyatira, 
(as many as have not this doctrine, &c.) I will put 
upon you none other burden : but that which ye have 
already, hold fast till I come." Now, if after saying 
to the angel of the Church in Smyrna, v. 10, "Fear 
none of those things which thou shalt suffer," he in- 
stantly subjoins, " Behold, the devil shall cast some of 
you into prison, and ye shall have tribulation ten 
days," and if, after addressing the angel of the latter 
Church in the singular number, he adds soon after- 
wards, " But unto you I say," in the plural, it seems 
impossible to resist the conclusion, that the angels of 
these churches must not have been designed to be 
viewed as single persons like diocesan bishops, but as 
the representatives of a number of persons. And as 
the members of the church or the people are said in 
the first chapter to be represented by the candlesticks, 
and the ministers by the symbols of the angels and 
the stars, I cannot see how, without setting aside our 
Lord's interpretation of these symbols, you can con- 
sider the plurality of persons represented by the angel, 
(for as the pronouns are plural he must represent a 
plurality,) as any other than the whole of the minis- 
ters of these different churches. 

It is alleged by Episcopalians, that when plural 
pronouns are used in these Epistles after a singular 
noun or pronoun, it is the people who are referred to 
by the former. But I would remark, in the first 
place, that even according to this interpretation, the 
rest of the pastors except the bishop, though by far 
the most numerous part of the ministry, remain un- 
noticed ; and can we suppose that they would have 
been overlooked in such particular descriptions of the 
state of the churches ? 2dly, These Epistles are not 
addressed to the angels and churches of Smyrna and 
Thyatira, as we would have expected to be the case 
if this exposition had been correct, but merely to the 
angels ; and no other party is introduced afterwards, 
and addressed separately. 3dly, If it be the people 
who are intended when the plural pronouns are used, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 191 

v. 10, without any notice of a change of the persons 
who were to be addressed, and if it be the bishop 
alone who is referred to when the singular pronouns 
are employed in the first and last clauses of that verse, 
there is an inexplicable mixing of the persons who 
are addressed. And what is still more inexplicable, 
while the people are told that they are "to suffer, and 
to be cast into prison," they have no promise address- 
ed to them to animate them under their tribulations, 
nor the least comfort administered to them, but it is 
given exclusively to the bishop, who alone is told in 
the last clause, that " if he is faithful unto the death," 
the Redeemer will "give him a crown of life." But 
suppose that the angel to ivhom every thing is ad- 
dressed in both these Epistles represents not merely 
a single individual, like a diocesan bishop, but, as the 
plural pronouns evidently suggest, a number of indi- 
viduals ; and suppose further, that these individuals 
are not the members of either of these churches, who 
are represented by the candlesticks, but the only other 
persons who remain, namely, the whole of their min- 
isters, and all these difficulties are removed; and you 
see how all of them could appropriate the promise, 
and though they were cast into prison, if they were 
" faithful unto the death," might be cheered by the 
assurance that they would "receive a crown of life." 
So evidently are these views suggested by the 
Epistles, that they are adopted by Stillingfleet with 
his usual candour, who scouts the idea that the angels 
of the churches were diocesan bishops. " If the name 
angel," says he, "imports no incongruity, though taken 
only for the Sheliach Zibbor in the Jewish synagogue, 
the public minister of the synagogue, called the angel 
of the congregation, what power can be inferred from 
thence, any more than such an officer was invested 
with? Nay, if in the prophetical style an unity may 
be set down by way of representation of a multitude, 
what evidence can be brought from the name, that 
by it some one particular person must be under- 
stood? And by this means Timothy may avoid being 
charged with leaving his first love, which he must of 



192 LETTERS ON 

necessity be by those that make him angel of the 
Church of Ephesus at the time of writing these Epis- 
tles. Neither is this any wayes solved by the answer 
given, that the name angel is representative of the 
whole Church, and so there is no necessity the angel 
should be personally guilty of it. For first, it seems 
strange that the whole diffusive body of the Church 
should be charged with a crime by the name of the 
angel, and he that is particularly meant by that name 
should be free from it. As if a prince should charge 
the mayor of a corporation as guilty of rebellion, and 
by it should only mean that the corporation was 
guilty, but the mayor was innocent himself. Second- 
ly, if many things in the Epistles be directed to the 
angel, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then 
of necessity the angel must be taken as representa- 
tive of the body; and then why may not the word 
angel be taken only by way of representation of the 
body itself, either of the whole Church, or which is 
far more probable, of the consessus or order of pres- 
byters in that Church?"* 

If the angels, however, of these early churches re- 
presented the whole body of the presbyters, and nei- 
ther a diocesan bishop, nor the people or members, 
the last of ivhom could scarcely be called angels, 
for it is not their province to deliver the message, 
but rather to receive it, it is easy to perceive how 
they could perform the different acts of jurisdiction 
which are ascribed to them by Episcopalians. Pres- 
byters are declared to be worthy of double honour if 
they rule well, and why might not the presbyters of 
the Asiatic Churches have attained that honour, by 
performing acts which were required from the angels 
of Pergamos and Thyatira? I acknowledge with For- 
rester, that the expulsion of the individuals from the 
communion of these churches who taught the here- 
sies, and were guilty of the immoralities which are 
mentioned in the Epistles, would have been judicial 
acts j but they were acts to which the authority com- 

* Irenicum, p. 289, 290. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 193 

mitted to presbyters, as was formerly proved, was 
fully equal. 

I have only further to observe, that while I look 
upon the angels as intended to represent the ministers 
of these churches, because they alone were to deliver 
the message of heaven by preaching the Gospel, Dr. 
Hammond considers them as designed chiefly to re- 
present the people. " Though the angels," says he, 
" were single persons, yet what is said to them is said 
not only to their persons, but to the universality of 
the people under them, whose non-proficiency, or re- 
mission of degrees of Christian virtue, especially their 
falling off from the constancy and courage of their 
profession, do deserve (and accordingly are threaten- 
ed with) the removal of their Christian knowledge, 
that grace, those privileges of a Church which had 
been allowed them, ch. ii. 5, which is not so properly 
applied as a punishment of the bishop, as of the peo- 
ple under him. And therefore, in the paraphrase I 
have generally changed the singular into the plural 
number, by that means to have it indifferently to the 
bishop of every church, and the people under him."* 
The same, too, was the opinion of Willet, who says, 
in a passage formerly quoted, " the Holy Ghost wri- 
ting to the angels and chief pastors of the seven 
Churches, Apoc. ii. 3, imply eth the rest of the minis- 
ters and Church there, as may appear by the matter 
of the Epistles, wherein the faults of the whole Church 
are reproved, and their virtues commended." And it 
was the opinion of many of the ancient fathers, who 
seem never to have imagined that the angels repre- 
sented only a single individual. Thus, when John 
says in the first Epistle, " To the angel of the Church 
of Ephesus," Aretas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappado- 
cia, says, "he means the Church in it."t When he 
exhorts the angel of the Church of Smyrna to " fear 
none of these things," the author of the Homilies on 
the Apocalypse, which are bound up with the works 

* Consult him on these Epistles. 

t Comment, in Apoc. t» ev aum ixx.kiirnt. xryu. 

13 



194 LETTERS ON 

of St. Augustine, observes, " he says it to the whole 
Church."* When he says to the angel of the Church 
of Pergamos, "I know thy works, and where thou 
dwellest, even where Satan's seat is," it is remarked 
by the same writer, " these things under a singular 
word are said to the whole Church, because Satan 
dwells everywhere by his body."t I might go over 
the whole of these little Epistles, and appeal to simi- 
lar quotations from the fathers in confirmation of my 
statement, but I consider it as unnecessary. And 
though I differ from them in their account of the per- 
sons represented by the angels of the Churches, they 
agree with me in this, that these early ministers were 
not intended to be regarded as single persons, and 
that you will look to them in vain for the smallest 
support to your ecclesiastical polity. 

Having finished this review of the different argu- 
ments for diocesan Episcopacy, which have been ad- 
duced ftpm Scripture by its most distinguished advo- 
cates, and endeavoured to show, that on whatever 
you found it, it cannot be on the statements of the 
word of God, I might conclude this discussion, which 
has been far more extended than I at first anticipated. 
But, before I do so, I beg to subjoin a view of the 
powers which you commit to your bishops, by one of 
the most enlightened and illustrious men who ever 
lived in England, and which he pronounces to be as 
inconsistent with all the principles of good govern- 
ment, as I have attempted to show, that they are des- 
titute of any warrant from the sacred volume. 

The individual to whom 1 allude is the great Lord 
Bacon, who, in his Considerations touching the paci- 
fication of the Church, addressed to James the First, 
makes the following observations: 

" There be two circumstances in the administra- 
tion of bishops, wherein I confess / could never be 
satisfied, the one, the sole exercise of their authority, 
the other, the deputation of their authority. 

" For the first, the bishop giveth orders alone, ex~ 

* Augustine, Op. torn. x. Horn. 2, in Apoc. "Omni Ecclesiae dicit." 
t Horn. 2. in Apoc. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 195 

communicateth alone, judgeth alone. This seemeth 
to be a thing almost without example in good gov- 
ernment, and therefore not unlikely to have crept in, 
in the degenerate and corrupt times. We see the 
greatest kings and monarchs have their councils. 
There is no temporal court in England, of the highest 
sort, where the authority doth rest in one person. 
The King's Bench, Common Pleas and the Exche- 
quer are benches of a number of judges. The chan- 
cellor of England hath an assistance of the twelve 
Masters of the Chancery. The Master of the Wards 
hath a council of the court, so hath the Chancellor of 
the Duchy. In the Exchequer Chamber the Lord 
Treasurer is joined with the Chancellor and the Bar- 
ons. The Masters of the Requests are ever more 
than one. The Justices of Assize are two. The 
Lords President in the North and in Wales have 
councils of divers. The Star-Chamber is an assem- 
bly of the King's Privy Council, aspersed with the 
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, so as in courts the 
principal person hath ever either colleagues or asses- 
sors. 

" The like is to be found in other well-governed 
commonwealths abroad, where the jurisdiction is yet 
more dispersed, as in the Court of Parliament of 
France, and in other places. No man will deny but 
the acts which pass the bishop's jurisdiction are of as 
great importance as those that pass the civil courts : 
for men's souls are more precious than their bodies 
or goods ; and so are their good names. Bishops have 
their infirmities, and have no exceptions from that 
general malediction, which is pronounced against all 
men living, Vse soli, nam si occideret, &c. Nay, we 
see that the first warrant in spiritual causes is direct- 
ed to a number, Die Ecclesise,* which is not so in 
temporal matters; and we see, that in general causes 
of Church government, there are as well assemblies 
of the clergy in councils, as of all the states in Parlia- 
ment. Whence should this sole exercise of juris dic- 

* « Tell the Church." 



196 LETTERS ON 

Hon come? Surely I do suppose, I think upon good 
grounds, that ab initio non fuit ita* and that the 
deans and chapters were councils about the sees and 
chairs of bishops at the first, and were unto them a 
presbytery or consistory ; and intermeddled not only 
in the disposing of their revenues and endowments, 
but much more in jurisdiction ecclesiastical. But it 
is probable that the deans and chapters stuck close to 
the bishops in matters of profit and the world, and 
would not lose their hold; but in matters of jurisdic- 
tion, which they accounted but trouble and atten- 
dance, they sufTered the bishops to encroach and 
usurp; and so the one continueth, and the other is 
lost. And we see that the Bishop of Rome, fas enim 
et ab hoste doceri, and no question in that Church 
the first institutions were excellent, performeth all 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction as in consistory. 

" And whereof consisteth this consistory, but of the 
parish-priests of Rome, which term themselves cardi- 
nals a cardinibus mundi, because the bishop pre- 
tendeth to be universal over the whole world? And 
hereof again we see many shadows yet remaining, as 
that the dean and chapter, pro forma, chooseth the 
bishop, which is the highest point of jurisdiction : 
and that the bishop, when he giveth orders, if there 
be any ministers casually present, calleth them to join 
with him in imposition of hands, and some other 
particulars. And therefore it seemeth to me a thing 
reasonable and religious, and according to the first 
institution, that the bishops in the greatest causes, 
and those which require a spiritual discerning, namely, 
in ordaining, suspending, or depriving ministers, 
in excommunication, being restored to the true and 
proper use, as shall be afterwards touched, in sen- 
tencing the validity of marriages and legitimations, 
in judging causes criminous, as simony, incest, blas- 
phemy and the like, should not proceed sole and un- 
assisted : which point, as I understand it, is a refor- 
mation that may be planted sine strepitu, without 
any perturbation at all. 

* " From the beginning it was not so." 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 197 

" For the second point, which is the deputation of 
their authority, I see no perfect nor sure ground for 
that neither, being somewhat different from the exam- 
ples and rules of government. The bishop exerciseth 
his jurisdiction by his chancellor and commissary offi- 
cial," &c. "We see in all laws in the world, offices 
of confidence and skill cannot be put over nor exer- 
cised by deputy, except it be especially contained in 
the original grant; and in that case it is dutiful. And 
for experience, there never was any Chancellor of 
England made a deputy; there was never any judge 
in any court made a deputy. The bishop is a judge, 
and of a high nature. Whence cometh it that he 
should depute, considering that all trust and confi- 
dence, as was said, is personal and inherent, and can- 
not, nor ought not to be transposed? Surely, in 
this again, ab initio non fuit sic; but it is probable 
that bishops when they gave themselves too much 
to the glory of the world, and became grandees in 
kingdoms, and great counsellors to princes, then 
did they delegate their proper jurisdiction, as things 
of too inferior a nature for their greatness, and 
then, after the similitude and imitation of kings and 
counts-palatine, they would have their chancellors 
and judges."* 

I trust that the name of the eminent individual from 
whom I have taken this quotation, and the weight of 
his authority, will form my apology for introducing it, 
notwithstanding its length. And as you still continue 
to intrust to your bishops those high powers, their 
title to which you cannot establish from the Sacred 
Scriptures, and which he demonstrates to be inconsis- 
tent with all the principles of good government, I 
leave it to impartial judges to say what we ought to 
think of the modesty of your pretensions, when, along 
with your friends of the Church of Rome, and a large 
proportion of the Scottish Episcopalians, you tell us 
that yours are the only churches in which there is a 
Gospel ministry, right ecclesiastical government, sacra- 

* Vol. iii. of his Works, p. 150-152, edit. 1765. 



198 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

ments which have any virtue, and a covenanted title 
to the blessings of salvation. 

I think it unnecessary to advert to the arguments 
for Episcopacy from mere expediency, as I have 
engaged in this discussion with a view chiefly to 
repel the unprovoked attacks of those of its advocates, 
who, not satisfied with preferring it on other grounds, 
advance for it the claim of an exclusive title to a divine 
institution, and imitating the conduct of Papists to- 
wards themselves, have ventured to unchurch Presby- 
terian Churches. But I may briefly notice, that if it 
be alleged that it is the best and most effectual means 
for preventing schism, the numerous divisions in the 
Church of Rome in every age, and the state of your 
own Church in the present day, prove that it is an 
expedient which is utterly powerless. Besides, if that 
be a reason for establishing Episcopacy, it will lead 
to consequences, of which many who urge it do not 
appear to be aware. " For," says an old and able 
writer, " if there be a necessity for setting up of one 
bishop over many pastors, for preventing schisms, 
then there is as great necessity of setting up one arch- 
bishop over many bishops, and one patriarch over 
many archbishops and one Pope over all ; unless 
men will imagine that there is danger of schism 
among ministers, but not among bishops, archbishops, 
and patriarchs, which is contrary to reason, truth, 
history, and our own experience."* 

I am, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 

* Letter from a Parochial Bishop to a Prelatical Gentleman in 
Scotland, p. 101. 



199 



LETTER XIV. 

Apostolical succession. — If the Apostles were neither diocesan bishops them- 
selves, nor ordained such bishops, the apostolical succession, as explained 
and claimed by Puseyite Episcopalians, never began. — Waving that ob- 
jection, as far as there was a succession, it was preserved to Presbyterian 
Churches before the Reformation, as uninterruptedly as to Episcopalian 
Churches; and since that time it has been preserved as regularly in the 
former, by Presbyterian ordinations, as in the latter by Episcopal. — Un- 
founded allegation by Spottiswood and others, that the adoption of Presby- 
tery at Geneva orginated in a wish to assimilate the government of the 
Church to that of the State, and that this led to the adoption of that form 
of ecclesiastical polity in other countries. — The contrary proved from the 
reasoning of Farel with Furbiti, who preceded Calvin, and is considered 
by many as the modern father or reviver of Presbytery. — Eusebius ac- 
knowledges that he could not trace the succession in many of the early 
Churches. — Jewel and Stillingfleet confess that it cannot be traced in the 
Church of Rome, from which many of the ministers of the Church of Eng- 
land have derived their orders. 

Reverend Sir, — If diocesan Episcopacy, as I trust 
has been proved in the preceding letters, has failed 
completely in establishing its claim to a divine insti- 
tution, it may be considered as unnecessary that I 
should inquire any further into your boasted privilege 
of the apostolic succession; for if the Apostles were 
neither bishops themselves, nor ordained bishops, the 
series of unbroken Episcopalian ordinations which you 
represent as the peculiar privilege of your churches, at 
what ever time it commenced, must be a mere human 
invention. But waving that strong and insuperable 
objection to your doctrine of the succession, I am 
willing to meet you on lower ground, and I shall 
proceed to examine whether the series of regularly 
ordained bishops, which, you allege, began in the time 
of the Apostles, has been preserved uninterrupted in 
any of these churches till the present day. If the 
chain which connects either your own bishops, or the 
bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, with the 
first in the series, has unfortunately been broken either 
at the tenth, or fiftieth, or hundredth link, the con- 
sequences on your principles must evidently be fatal ; 
for neither of these Churches can be considered any 
longer as a Christian Church, nor can any of its minis- 



200 LETTERS ON 

ters be Christian ministers, nor can any of its mem- 
bers have any revealed or covenanted title to salva- 
tion. And the same, too, would be the state of the 
Roman Catholic Church, and of every other Church 
on the face of the earth. The question then to be 
considered is briefly this, can it be proved that the 
series, allowing it to have commenced, if not with the 
Apostles, yet in the apostolic age, (the opposite of 
which, I apprehend, has been established,) has never 
been interrupted ? or can it be demonstrated on the 
contrary, that there is not a single Episcopalian Church 
in which it has not been frequently broken ? 

I observe in the first place, that in as far as the 
succession remains uninterrupted, we can claim it for 
our churches, as much as you are entitled to claim it 
for yours; for our first reformers when they left the 
communion of the Church of Rome were possessed of 
orders which were equally valid with those of your 
reformers. It was so with Bucer, who was a Popish 
presbyter before he became a Protestant; and with 
Farel, who defended Presbytery before the Council 
of Geneva, against the artful Furbiti, a number of 
months before Calvin accidentally visited that city,* 

* Ruchat says of Farel, in his Histoire de la Reformation de la 
Suisse, torn. i. p. 231, that he was "Reformateur d'une bonne partie 
de la Suisse Romande, d'Aigle, de Morat, de Neuchatel, de Geneve, 
et en partie de Lausanne. And the following- is a part of his account 
of the discussion between the Reformer and Furbiti, who was a doctor 
of the Sorbonne, before the Council, in January 1534, on the subject 
of Episcopacy. " Furbiti," says he, torn. v. p. 114, " voulut prouver 
la superiorite de l'Eveque par dessus le Pretre, lmo, Parce que Jesus 
Christ a elu douze Apotres, (Mat. x,) qui ontete Eveques, comme c'il 
paroit par Judas, de qui il est dit, qu'un autre prenne son Eveche. 
(Ruchat adds in a note, that it is quoted by Peter from the ll)9th 
Psalm, and one may judge whether David, when he wrote it, icas 
thinking of bishops.) 2do, Parce que S. Paul dit, Eph. iv. que le 
Seigneur ai donne les uns pour etre Apotres, les autres pour etre Pro- 
phetes, les autres Pasteurs et Docteurs, &c. En un Diocesse il n'y a 
qu'un Evequc, qui a sous plusieurs Pretres, &c. 

il Farel, apres avoir releve en passant ce que Furbiti disoit du Pape, 
et soutenu que Jesus Christ n'a point de Successeur montra que dans 
les Epitres de S. Paul les mots Eveque et Pretre sont synonimes ; 
lmo, par 1'Epitre a Tite, (c. i.) ou il lui dit qu'il la laisse en Crete, 
pour y etablir des Pretres Tr^c-gur^cvc, v. 5, si quelqu'un soit irrepre- 
hensible, &c. 2do, Par Act xx. ou S. Paul fit venir les Pretres 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 201 

and more than a year and a half before he published 
his Institutes,* and who accordingly has been con- 
sidered by some as having had a preferable claim over 
the latter Reformer, to the honourable character of 
the modern father, or restorer of Presbytery. And I 
may remark in passing, that it is impossible for any 
one to look into the arguments employed by Farel, as 
they are stated below, or into some of the facts which 
are mentioned in the notes, without being struck with 
the groundlessness of the assertion of Spottiswood, 

d'Ephese, v. 17, et leur dit, Prenez garde a vous et a tout le troupeau 
sur lequel le Saint Esprit vous a etabilis eveques, v. 28. 3mo, Par S. 
Pierre, qui au commencement du ch. v. de sa premiere Epitre, ne 
s'appelle, ni Pape, ni Archeveque, mais Pretre avec ou comme les 
autres. 4?no, II y avoit plusieurs Eveques dans une vijle, comme il 
paroit par ceux d'Ephese qui etoient plusieurs, et par le commence- 
ment de l'Epitre aux Philippiens ou S. Paul salue les Evrques et les 
Diacres. 5mo, Si Jesus Christ a institue 12 Apotres et ensuite 70 
disciples, (et non 72,) il n'a point ^retendu marquer par la difference 
des Eveques et des Pretrcs : Les noms (TEveque et de Pretre signijient 
la meme (Lignite. Le premier marque le soin de inspection, et le 
second l'age, signifiant proprement Ancien, car il faut qu'il soit 
Ancien de moeurs et de Savoir, pour conduire le peuple. 6mo, Si 
Judas etoit Eveque, on son Eveche ? Mais bien lui convientdit il avec 
les Eveques qui au lieu de porter la parole de Dieu portent la bourse, 
derobent ce qui doit venir aux pauvres," &c. 

It is plain from this, that when Presbytery was established in Ge- 
neva, it was not because as Heylin, Spottiswood and other Episco- 
palians affirm, it resembled the republican government of the state, 
but because it appeared to be agreeable to the word of God. Besides, 
as the Grand Council of the city, which was composed, according to 
Ruchat, of two hundred or two hundred and fifty members, chose all 
the members of the Little Council, Petit Conceil, and of the Council 
of Sixty, and as the little or lowest council decided in certain matters 
without appeal, there was no resemblance in point of fact between the 
courts of the state and the Presbyterian courts. And yet how often 
have the fictions of Spottiswood been retailed by others. 

* Historia Literaria de Johannis Calvini Institutione, torn. ii. part 1, 
page 453 of the Scrinium Antiquarium of Gerdesius. 

It deserves also to be mentioned, that after the celebrated Helvetian 
Assembly, which was held for inquiring into the necessity for a Re- 
formation in 1523, and at which, according to Gerdesius, (Histor. 
Evangel. Renov. vol. i. p. 290,) nine hundred deputies were present, 
the magistrates of Geneva and Switzerland published an edict, in 
which among other things they condemned organs and all instru- 
mental music. "Sacerdotibusquoque mandatum est ne organis pos- 
thac ludant in templis." This paper, says Fusslin, in his Document. 
ad Ilistor. Reform. Helvet, torn. i. was drawn up with the concurrence 
of Zuinglius, Eugelbardt and Leo Juda. 



202 LETTERS ON 

that Presbyterian Church government was adopted 
at Geneva merely to assimilate the constitution of 
the Church to that of the State. It was so with 
Luther, who was ordained a presbyter of the Church 
of Rome, and afterwards ordained many presbyters, 
and who, along with three presbyters, made Amsdorf 
Bishop of Nuremberg, and, with some other presbyters, 
made George, Prince of Anhalt, Bishop of Marsburg.* 
Nor did the Prince imagine that he acted irregularly 
when he asked the Reformer to ordain him ; for, as 
Seckendorf informs us, he thought he was justified -in 
doing so, by the example of Paul and Barnabas, who 
were ordained by prophets and teachers at Antioch, 
and by the opinion of Jerome, who represented bishops 
and presbyters as equal. t 

* Melchior Adami Vitae Germanorum Theologorum, p. 150 ; Seek- 
endorfs History of Lutheranism, lib. iii. p. 392. 

f " Addit," says Seckendorf, lib. iii. p. 500, speaking of what is 
mentioned on this subject by George himself, in a preface to his Ser- 
mons, "sequidem rogasse Matthiam a Jagow, Episcopum Brande- 
burgensem, ut ordinationem suam in se susciperet, sed ilium eo tem- 
pore mortuum esse. Itaque Pauli et Barnabae exemplo, quos pro- 
phetae et doctores Antiocheni, Actorum, xiii, 1, 2, 3, ordinaverunt, D. 
Martinum Lutherum piae memoriae, aliosque accersitos fuisse, a 
quibus solenniter et pie accepto etiam Sacramento, per manuum 
impositonem ordinatus fuerit, eoque nomine se gratias Deo agere dicit. 
Subjungit inde ex Hieronymo quae nota sunt, ab ipso tamen egregie 
deducuntur, de paritate Episcoporum et Presbyterorum." 

I may add here, that when a false account of a change of sentiment 
on the part of Luther and Melancthon was handed about by the Papists 
in 1539, Seckendorf says, lib. iii. p. 228, "Luther and Melancthon 
never thought that the episcopal office was necessary with all that 
power and authority as it exists in the Church of Rome, nor did they 
recognise any essential difference between bishops and presbyters, as 
is manifest from all their writings which have never been recalled, and 
especially from the tract on the power and jurisdiction of bishops, 
composed by Melancthon at Smalkald, in 1537, and subscribed by 
Luther, and annexed to the articles which they drew up between them. 
Lutherus et Melancthon nunquam statuerint neccssarium esse illud 
munus Episcopale," &c. 

Seckendorf remarks, too, lib. iii. p. 240, that in the Ordinatio Eccle- 
siastica, which was issued by the Elector of Brandenburgh, the an- 
cestor of the present King of Prussia, in 1539, that Prince acknow- 
ledges, that " at the beginning, as Jerome declares, there was no dif- 
ference between the ordination of bishops and presbyters ; and that it 
was plain from the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles to Timothy, 
that bishops received it by the imposition of the hands of the college 
of Presbyters. Refert ex Hieronymo, et post eum ex aliis Doctoribus, 






PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 203 

It was so in regard to the leading Reformers of the 
Church of Scotland. It was admitted by Winzel, the 
Popish priest, respecting Knox; for in one of his letters 
to him he addresses him in the following terms: "As 
S. Paul ordinatit Timothe and Tite, gevand thaim 
power and command to ordour utheris, quherin ap- 
peres the lauchful ordinatioun of ministeris, zour 
lauchful ordinatioun be ane of thir two wayis, (he had 
mentioned another,) we desire zou to shaw sen ze 
renunce and esteemis that ordinatioun null or erar 
wickit, (rather wicked,) be the quhilk sum tyme ze 
war callit Schir John," the title of a Popish priest;* 
upon which Keith, the Episcopalian historian, re- 
marks, "here is a plain and certain instruction that 
John Knox had formerly received the ordination 
of a priest."! And it was acknowledged by Bishop 
Forbes, an ancient Scottish prelate, with whom none 
of their present bishops can be compared, either 
as to learning or orthodoxy, so far as we can judge 
from their writings, for he says to the Papists, of 
the founders of our Church, "Who of our first 
preachers were not ordinarie churchmen ere they 

Scholasticis et Canonistis, praesertim Panormitano in Cap. Quando 
de Consuetud. nullum fuisse ab initio inter episcopos ot presbyteros 
ratione ordinationis discrimen," &c. 

Melancthon, in his tract de Ordine in Ecclesia, 2d vol. of his Works, 
p. 8G7, bears the following decided testimony against the divine insti- 
tution of diocesan Episcopacy. " Sed quaerat aliquis annon etiam 
gradus diversi sint ac ordo ? Respondeo, Est in Ecclesia vera minis- 
terium docendi, sunt doctores ac pastores alicubi, ut scriptum est, alios 
quidem dedit doctores, alios pastores, ne circumferamur variis ventis 
doctrinae. Est igitur officium, et sunt gradus donorum. Sed hinc 
non sequitur jure divino episcopum a presbytero discernendum esse. 
Imo Hieronymus aperte testatur non esse jure divino diversos gradus 
episcopi et presbyteri." In other words, he admits that there are 
different degrees of gifts, but denies that it follows from thence that 
" there is any difference between a bishop and a presbyter; and says, 
that according to Jerome, the orders of bishops and presbyters are 
not distinct from each other by divine right. 

* See Strype's Cranmcr, pp. 100 and 101, where it is given to four 
Popish priests. TindaFs Practice of the Popish Prelates, p. 343 of 
his works, and Frith's Aunswer to my Lord of Rochester, p. 59. 

Dr. Mackenzie, in his Life of James Tyrie, says, that " in the title 
of one of that Jesuit's books, in controversy with Knox, he styles him 
Sir John Knox." 

t Appendix to his Church History, vol. i. p. 204. 



204 LETTERS ON 

had their admission to the ministerie by the Reformed 
Churches of England, Geneva or Germanie ? If they 
were not blindlie miscarried, they might perceave that 
which they speake and write of our men in derision 
and contumelie, calling them Sir John Knox and Frere 
John Craig, it verified! their ordinarie vocation."* As 
far as the succession then could be kept up by ordina- 
tions obtained from the Church of Rome, of which the 
Scottish Episcopalians say in their Confession of Faith, 
" we fly the doctrine of the Papistical kirk in par- 
ticipation of the Sacrament, because their ministers 
are not the ministers of Christ Jesus,V and which 
is represented in Scripture as " the mother of the spi- 
ritual abominations of the earth, out of which the 
saints are exhorted to come, if they would not be par- 
takers of her plagues, within which the great Anti- 
christ sits in the Temple of God, and exalts himself 
above all that is called God, and where that wicked 
one bears rule, whom the Lord is to destroy with the 
spirit of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming," 
as far, T say, as the succession could be kept up by 
ordinations obtained from such a Churchy it was pre- 
served to us as well as to you ; and while it has been 
maintained among you since that time by bishops, 
and among us by presbyters, I have only further to 
add, that if you question the validity of our orders, 
because we received them only from presbyters, you 
would be bound, for the same reason, to question the 
validity of the orders of Barnabas and Timothy, one 
of whom, as has been proved, was ordained even to 
the office of an Apostle, and the other to that of an 
evangelist, by presbyters ; and you do so in opposition 
to the fifty-fifth canon of your own Church, to which 
you swear obedience, and which, though made in 
1603, when the Church of Scotland was Presbyterian, 
enjoined her clergy at that time, and commands them 

* Defence of the Calling of the Reformed Churches. 

t Confession of Faith which they used before the Revolution ; and 
yet it is from these men, whom they deny to be the ministers of 
Christ, that the present bishops of what they haughtily denominate 
the Reformed Episcopal Church of Scotland derive their boasted apos- 
tolical succession ! 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 205 

still to pray for our Church as a sister Church* Be- 
sides, if you deny the validity of our orders, you must 
set aside also the validity of our baptisms. And this, 
as I shall endeavour to show you immediately, will 
lead to consequences of which you are not aware ; for 
on the very same principle it may be easily demon- 
strated that you are not a minister, nor Mr. Gladstone 
a Christian, nor the English and Scottish Episcopalian 
Churches, Churches of Christ. 

In the second place, it is impossible for you or any 
of your followers to prove that such an uninterrupted 
apostical succession, as that in which you glory, has 
been preserved in your Church, or in any other Epis- 
copalian Church which exists upon earth. 

Before you can either satisfy your own minds, or 
demonstrate to others that you have such a succession, 
you must be able to show who were the bishops from 
the apostolic age from whom your present clergy have 
derived their orders, and that there was not so much 
as one of them for the last eighteen hundred years 
whose baptism or ordination was irregular. If, as 
has already been remarked, the chain which you 
imagine binds you to the Apostles has happened to 
be broken by an essential defect in the baptism or 
orders of any of your bishops, or of those who pre- 

* u The very canons of the Church of England," says the dissent- 
ing gentleman in his answer to Mr. White, p. 227, u to which you 
have sworn obedience, acknowledge the Church of Scotland to be a 
sister Church, commanding all its clergy to pray for the Churches of 
England, Scotland and Ireland, as parts of Christ's Holy Catholic 
Church, which is dispersed throughout the world." 

How different from Dr. Pusey's sentiments about the Church, and 
those of a number of the present Scottish Episcopalians, were the 
views of Dr. Forbes, one of their ancient professors of divinity, who, 
in his Irenicum, defends this position, p. 158, that " a church which 
retains the orthodox faith, but wants bishops, though it may be defec- 
tive in its constitution, does not cease to be a true church, nor falls 
from that ecclesiastical authority which is possessed by churches that 
are governed by bishops." Presbyterians will deny that it is defec- 
tive, and will maintain that it resembles more closely the apostolic 
churches than other churches which have diocesan bishops, an order 
of ministers whom Christ has not instituted. But still it shows the 
estimate, that even as an enlightened Episcopalian, he formed of the 
difference between the two Churches, where the doctrines of the Gos- 
pel were faithfully preached. 



206 LETTERS ON 

ceded them, whether they were the fiftieth, or the 
hundredth, or the two hundredth in the series, it is 
fatal upon your principles; for it cannot be mended, 
and we must wait till some Apostle rise from the dead, 
and begin a new succession, before there can be a 
church or a minister whose labours can be attended 
with the smallest benefit to the souls of men on the 
face of the earth. The first of these qualifications is 
indispensable, for, as Dr. Hickes observes, " baptism 
is a fundamental qualification for the priesthood, and 
the want thereof must utterly render a man uncapa- 
ble of being a Christian priest, because it makes him 
utterly uncapable of being a Christian."* And you 
are sensible that by the canons of the first four Gene- 
ral Councils, which are recognised both by your 
Church and by the Scottish Episcopalians, all baptisms 
performed by schismatics are considered as invalid, 
and since the conference at Hampton Court, none but 
ministers who have been ordained by bishops can 
legally administer that ordinance.! And the second 
qualification is no less necessary. Now, I apprehend 
that you cannot tell who were the persons who bap- 
tized those individuals from the days of the Apostles, 
who were afterwards bishops, (and in the days of 
Tertullian and afterwards it was often done by lay- 
men,) and who were the bishops that ordained the 
latter till the time of the Reformation. The Jews had 
a series of genealogical tables from the time of the 
institution of their priesthood, by turning to which 
they could know at once who had been high-priest, 
or priests and Levites, from the days of Aaron. By 
appealing to these, any one who was descended from 
a priestly family, upon attaining the age appointed in 
the law, could demand that he should be put into 
that office ; and by referring to them also, the priests 
and the people could ascertain whether he had a right 
to it, and whether his ministrations would be valid. 

* Letter to Lawrence, p. 37. 

t Both English and Scottish Episcopalians attempt to remedy this 
defect in different ways when converts join their Churches; but they 
are always unsatisfactory, unless the individuals are re-baptized. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 207 

But you, I presume, have no such record of the pre- 
decessors of your bishops, from the apostolic age, nor 
did they succeed, like the Jewish high-priest, by mere 
lineal descent, nor can you or the prelates of the Scot- 
tish Episcopalians, who are beginning to vaunt of their 
apostolical succession, though their forefathers, in the 
nineteenth article of their Confession, deny " lineal 
descense" to be "a mark of the true kirk"* produce 
any evidence of the regularity of their baptisms, or of 
the validity of their orders, or tell in many instances 
which of them was first and which of them was last. 
Eusebius, the most early of our Church historians, 
confesses that he could not do it ; for he says that he 
was " like a man walking through a desert, with only 
here and there a light to direct him;" and that he had 
been able to collect such notices as he had procured 
" of the successors, not of all, but only of the more 
illustrious Apostles."! And if such was his want of 
light in the fourth century, will you, or Mr. Newman, 
or Mr. Gladstone, throw more light on these matters 
in the nineteenth? And he says in another passage, 
" Who they were, that imitating these Apostles, (Peter 
and Paul,) were by them thought worthy to govern 
the Churches which they planted, is no easy thing to 
tell, excepting such as may be collected from Paul's 
cnvn words"! On which Stillingfleet remarks, then 
" what becomes of our unquestionable line of succes- 
sion of the bishops of several Churches, and the large 
diagrams made of the apostolical Churches, with every 
one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had 
been Clarencieux to the Apostles themselves ? Are 
all the great outcries of apostolical tradition, of per- 
sonal succession, of unquestionable records, resolved 
at last into the Scripture itself, by him from whom all 
these long pedigrees are fetched? Then let succes- 
sion know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the 

* The article relates to " the notes of the true kirk," of which it 
says, "they are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descense, place 
appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error.'''' It was their 
Confession of Faith before the Revolution. 

t Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 1. 

X Lib. iii. cap. 4. 



208 LETTERS ON 

Scriptures; and withal, let men take heed of over- 
reaching themselves, when they would bring down so 
large a catalogue of single bishops, from the first and 
purest times of the Church, for it will be hard to others 
to believe them, when Eusebius professeth it so hard 
to find them."* 

Dr. Cave admits that " there is a wonderful and 
almost irreconcileable discrepancy among later as 
well as ancient ecclesiastical writers in determining 
the age and succession only of the first Roman bish- 
ops."! Bishop Jewel, though he lived nearly three 
hundred years before you, acknowledges in the most 
explicit terms, that it cannot be determined, for he 
says to Harding the Jesuit, who denied that your 
Church had the apostolical succession, " But where- 
fore telleth us, M. Harding, this long tale of succes- 
sion? Have these men (the Papists,) their owne suc- 
cession in so safe record? Who was then the Bishop 
of Rome next by succession unto Peter? Who was 
the second? who the third? who the fourth? Ire- 
neeus reckoneth them together in this order, Petrus, 
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens. Epiphanius thus, Petrus, 
Linus, Cletus, Clemens. Optatus thus, Petrus, Linus, 
Clemens, Anacletus. Clemens saith that hee himself 
was next unto Peter, and then must the reckoning 
goe thus: Petrus, Clemens, Linus, Anacletus. Heere- 
by it is deer that of the foure first Bishops of 
Rome, M. Harding cannot certainly tell us who 
in order succeeded other. And thus talking so much 
of succession, they are not well able to blase their own 
succession." % And says Stillingfleet, who, though 
he published his Irenicum when he was very young, 
never retracted any of its leading statements, or re- 
futed its reasoning after he was made a bishop, come 
we therefore to Rome, and here the succession is " as 
muddy as the Tiber itself; for here Tertullian, Rufi- 
nus, and several others place Clement next to Peter; 

* Irenic. p. 297. 

t "Miram ac pene irreconciliabilem discrepantiam," &c. Histor. 
Literaria, p. 17. 

X Defense of the Apologie, p. 123. 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 209 

Xrenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him — 
Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus — 
Augustine and Damasus with others, Anacletus, Cle- 
tus and Linus all to precede him. What way shall 
we find to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?"* 
"And as to the British Churches," he says, "that 
from the loss of the records we cannot draw down 
the succession of bishops from the Apostles' time!" 
But if these things are so, and if you cannot trace the 
whole of the bishops in the different Churches through 
eighteen centuries, and attain decisive and satisfactory 
evidence that their baptisms and ordinations were 
regular, you can have no proof that your boasted 
apostolical succession has been preserved either in 
your own Church or in the Church of Rome, or 
among the Scottish Episcopalians, or that there is a 
single individual on the face of the earth whom you 
are warranted to recognise as a Christian minister, or 
who has reason to hope that he has a covenanted 
title to the blessings of salvation. 

Do you object to this reasoning, that upon the same 
principle I might question the genuineness of the New 
Testament, and require before it is admitted, " we 
should be able to trace it from manuscript to manu- 
script, and (after the invention of the art of printing,) 
from one edition to another, from the original writers 
to our own time," and see that no important altera- 

* Irenicum, part ii. chap. 6, p. 322. He says, too, p. 321, "At 
Antioch, some, as Origen and Eusebius, make Ignatius to succeed 
Peter. Jerome makes him the third bishop, and placeth Evodius be- 
fore him. Others therefore to solve that, make them cotemporary 
bishops, the one of the Church of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles, 
with what congruity to their hypothesis of a single bishop and dea- 
cons placed in every city, I know not." See a still more striking 
view of the difficulties connected with the episcopal succession at 
Antioch, in Dr. Calamy's Defence of Moderate Non-Conformity, vol. 
i. p. 165—169. 

Some have attempted to account for the number of bishops at Rome 
who received that name near the same time, on the principle that it 
was given to the presbyter who presided during the year in the as- 
sembly of presbyters, though he had no pre-eminence as to authority 
over his brethren, just as the individual among the nine archons or 
chief rulers at Athens, who presided over them for the year, gave 
his name to the year, and was called the Archon iTrmvfxo;. 
14 



210 LETTERS ON 

tion has taken place? I answer, that the cases are not 
parallel, and that this objection which was originally 
urged by Law, and which has been often since re- 
peated, does not apply. The uneducated Christian is 
convinced that the New Testament is the word of 
God, without any such inquiries, from its perfect ac- 
cordance with the wants of his soul, as a guilty and 
suffering and immortal creature; and because the 
more carefully he lives under the influence of its 
truths, it renders him at once more happy in himself, 
and more like to his God: and judging from its effects, 
he never has the slightest doubt of its genuineness.* 
And it is enough to satisfy a man of learning, that his 
copy of the New Testament is genuine, when he finds 
it correspond with the earliest manuscripts, and most 
ancient versions, such as the Syriac and the old Latin, 
and sees these confirmed as the writings of the Apos- 
tles and Evangelists, by the quotations from them in 
the works of the primitive Christians during the first 
five centuries. And he cares no more for any cor- 
rupted copies in later times, than Vossius or Usher, 
who believed, (though I think without sufficient evi- 
dence,) in the genuineness of the lesser Epistles of 
Ignatius, because they contained, as they imagined, 
the passages which were quoted from them by the 

* "Historians inform us," says Fuller in the introduction to his 
Gospel its own Witness, p. 2, " of a certain valuable medicine, called 
Mithridate, an antidote to poison. It is said to have been invented 
by Mithridates, King of Pontus; that the receipt of it was found in 
a cabinet, written with his own hand, and was carried to Rome by 
Pompey; that it was translated into verse by Democrates, a famous 
physician; and that it was afterwards translated by Galen, from 
whom we have it. Now, supposing this medicine to be efficacious 
for its professed purpose, of what account would it be to object to the 
authenticity of its history? If a modern caviller should take it into 
his head to allege that the preparation has passed through so many 
hands, and that there is so much hearsay and uncertainty attending 
it, that no dependence can be placed upon it, and that it had better 
be rejected from our materia medica, he would be asked, has it not 
been tried, and found to be effectual, and that in a great variety of 
instances ? Such are Mr. Paine's objections to the Bible, and such 
is the answer that may be given to him." And such is the way 
when he applies the New Testament to himself, in which the unlet- 
tered Christian is convinced of its genuineness. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 211 

early Christians, would have cared for the larger spu- 
rious Epistles where these passages are wanting. But 
it is a very different thing with the apostolical suc- 
cession, for though it had been preserved uncorrupted 
during the first five centuries, (and you have no evi- 
dence that it was so,) yet if it was vitiated afterwards 
in the seventh, or eighth, or any other century, it 
would be utterly destroyed, and could not possibly be 
restored, except by the mission of an Apostle to com- 
mence a new ordination of ministers. And if you tell 
me with Law, that " it is impossible the succession 
could be broken, because it has been a received doc- 
trine in every age of the Church, that no ordination 
was valid but that of bishops; and as there is no pos- 
sibility of forging orders, or stealing a bishopric in 
the Church of England in the present day," so it must 
have been equally impossible in every other Church 
at every period ;* I reply, that facts are stubborn 
things, and it is an extraordinary mode of reasoning 
to infer from what was the doctrine of the Church, 
what must also have been its practice in every in- 
stance, from the days of the Apostles. It has been 
the doctrine of the Church, for example, in every 
age, that three bishops could not legally ordain little 
children to be bishops; and you might maintain on 
this ground, that it never happened, though Bing- 
ham informs us that it was actually done, " as the 
Popes have ordained some at seven."! It has been 
the doctrine of the Church, that no bishop should 
obtain ordination through simony, and you might 
affirm on this ground that it has never taken place, 
though I trust I shall prove to you that it has fre- 
quently been the case. And it has likewise been its 
doctrine, that bishops who were drunk could not be- 
stow legal orders on a bishop or presbyter, and you 
might argue from this circumstance that no instance 
of it had occurred, for it could not occur in the pre- 
sent day in the Church of England. And yet it has 
been asserted by Pyle in his Strictures on Law, and 

* Postscript to his Second Letter to Bishop Hoadly, p. 101. 
t History of Lay Baptism, Works, vol. ii, p. 622. 



212 LETTERS ON 

has never been contradicted, that " Novatian, in the 
third century, procured himself to be ordained a 
bishop by the hands of three bishops whom he had 
made drunk for that purpose."* I might easily have 
added many other instances, in which the practice 
of the Church in regard to ordination, was directly 
the reverse of some of her leading doctrines, and it 
might as consistently be maintained, in opposition to 
the testimony of the most respectable historians, that 
they did not occur, as that there never was an in- 
stance since the days of the Apostles, of an indi- 
vidual being made a bishop whose baptism or or- 
ders were irregular, because it ivas the doctrine of 
the Church that both of them should be in strict 
accordance with its canons. 

But do you remind me with Bishop Skinner, that 
the apostolical succession is often mentioned by the 
fathers as a distinguishing mark of the true Church ? 
For says Tertullian of some of the heretics who exist- 
ed in his 'day, " Let them produce the original of their 
Churches, show the order of their bishops so running 
down successively from the beginning, as that every 
first bishop among them shall have had for his author 
and predecessor some one of the Apostles, or apostolic 
men who continued with the Apostles." And says 
Irenaeus of some others, " We can reckon up those 
who were by the Apostles ordained bishops, and those 
who were their successors, even to our own time. 
They never taught nor knew any of the wild opinions 
of these men."t I might content myself with referring 

* Second Letter to a Member of the University of Cambridge, p. 
77. The fact is admitted by a friend of Mr. Law, who calls himself 
P. F., and yet in his letter to Pyle, p. 40, " because the consecration 
was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity by those who v:ere 
duly commissioned for that purpose," he affirms that it was valid ! 
Would a similar appointment to any civil office in the name of a 
superior, by persons who were duly commissioned to make it, but 
who were drunk at the time, be held valid? Upon the same princi- 
ple it would follow, that if three drunk bishops were to give episcopal 
orders to an idiot or fatuous person in the name of the Trinity, it 
would be valid, and he would keep up the apostolical succession! 

t Tertullian de Praescript., c. 32. Irenaeus adversus Haeres. lib. 
iii. cap. 3. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 213 

you to what is said by Bishop Jewel, in answer to the 
very same objection, when it was urged by Harding 
for the apostolical succession in the Church of Rome, 
which that Papist contended was wanting in your 
Church,* and with merely remarking, that when you 
reply to his arguments I will reply to yours.t But 
I would observe further, that they appeal to the suc- 
cession not to establish your position, that an uninter- 
rupted series of ministers deriving their orders from 
diocesan bishops, from the days of the Apostles, is 
essential to the existence of a church, but only to show 
that their own doctrine, which they asserted was 
taught by the ministers who succeeded the Apostles 
in the different churches, till the time in which they 
themselves lived, was more likely to be true, than that 
of these heretics. Such was the purpose to which 
it was applied by Irenaeus, for after mentioning that 
it would be tedious to go through the successions in 
all the Churches, he says, "selecting the Church of 
Rome, and showing them the tradition/' or as it is 
explained in the beginning of the chapter, the doctrine 
which it has from the Apostles, (" traditionem Apos- 
tolorum in toto mundo manifestatam,") and "the faith 
announced to men by successions of bishops extending 
to us, we confound them all."J And the same also 

* Defense of the Apologie, p. 122, 123. 

t [Even Laud himself, who is an object of almost idolatrous vene- 
ration with Puseyite Episcopalians, however accustomed to extol 
the succession in his attacks upon the Puritans, was constrained to 
assume a different language when in controversy with Fisher the 
Jesuit. He was compelled then to say, " Besides, for succession in 
the general, I shall say this : it is a great happiness where it may 
be had visible and continued and a great conquest over the mutability 
of this present world. But I do not find any one of the ancient fathers 
that makes local, personal, visible and continued succession, a neces- 
sary si^n or mark of the Church in any one place.' 1 '' And then to make 
his testimony still more remarkable, he admits, "most evident it 
is, that the succession which the fathers meant, is not tied to place 
or person, but it is tied to the verity of doctrine."] — Am. Editor. 

X "Quoniam valde longnm est in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclc- 
siarum enumerare successioncs, maximac ct antiquissimae, et omni- 
bus cognitae a gloriosisflimis duobus Apostolis Petro ct Paulo Romae 
fundatae ct constitutae Ecclcsiae cam quam habet ab Apostolis tra- 
ditionem, et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successioncs Epis- 



214 LETTERS ON 

is the purpose to which it is applied by Tertullian, for 
while he appeals at one time in proof of the purity 
of his principles to the doctrines taught by the suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, he appeals in other passages 
to the Churches themselves, which had their authentic 
epistles.* Besides, though these fathers speak of the 
evangelical doctrine, as preserved by a succession of 
bishops, they never mention a word from which you 
can infer that they were diocesan bishops, and they 
as frequently represent the succession as having been 
kept up by presbyters. "Wherefore," says Irenaeus, 
" we ought to obey those presbyters in the Church who 
have succession, as we have shown, from the Apostles, 
who with the succession of the Episcopate, received the 
certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of 
the Father."! And in the following chapter he says, 
"Such presbyters the Church nourishes concerning 
whom the prophet says, I will give your princes in 
peace, and your bishops in righteousness." % Nay, 
Jerome even says, that " presbyters occupy the place 
of the apostles, (in loco Apostolorum,") and " suc- 
ceed the Apostles, (Apostolico gradui succedere.") No- 
thing, therefore, can be more just than the remark of 
Stillingfleet, that " it is the doctrine which they speak 
of as to succession, and the persons no further than as 
they are the conveyors of that doctrine ; either then it 
must be proved that a succession of somt persons in 
apostolical power is necessary for conveying this 
doctrine to men, or no argument at all can be inferred 
from hence, for their succeeding the Apostles in power, 
because they are said to convey down the apostolical 
doctrine to succeeding ages."§ I have only further to 

coporum pervenientes usque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus omnes 
eos." 

* Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis 
tuae percurrcre Ecelesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathe- 
drae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, apud quas ipsae authen- 
ticae eorum literae rccitantur, sonantes vocem et representantes fa- 
ciem uniuscujusque. Proxime est tibi Achaiam ? habes Corinthum. 
Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessaloni- 
censes," &c. De Praescript, cap. 36. 

t Adv. Haeres., lib. 4, cap. 43. 

t Ibid. cap. 44. § Irenicum, p. 305. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 215 

observe, that both these fathers lived scarcely a hun- 
dred years after the last of the Apostles, and that even 
if they had been successful in tracing the bishops of 
the different Churches during that short period back 
to these first ministers of the Gospel, (which is denied, 
as I have showed you, by Jewel and Stillingfleet,) it 
by no means follows that you, or Dr. Hook, or any 
of your followers, can trace your succession through 
eighteen hundred years, and prove that the bishops 
from whom you have derived your orders, without a 
single exception, were regularly baptized, and re- 
gularly ordained.* And yet all this is necessary upon 
your principles, before it is possible to establish the 
claim of any minister in the Church of England, or 
among the Scottish Episcopalians, or even in the 
Church of Rome, which you so greatly admire, to the 
honourable character of a Christian minister, or the 
title of any of the members of these Churches to the 
blessings of salvation. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 
i Yours, &c. 

* Dr. Inett, in his Origines Anglicanae, vol. i. p. 200, says that 
"the difficulties of succession in the see of Canterbury, betwixt the 
year 768 and the year 800, were invincible." And in p. 329 he says, 
that after the death of Dunstan, " Ethelgar, late abbot of the new- 
monastery in Winchester, and at this time Bishop of Winchester, 
succeeded to the chair of Canterbury the year following ; but dying 
the same year, our historians are not agreed who succeeded, some 
confidently pronouncing in favour of Siricius, others of Elfricus." 

In like manner Keith remarks, respecting the diocese of Dunblane, 
in Scotland, that " the writs of this see have been so neglected, or 
perhaps wilfully destroyed, that no light can be got from thence to 
guide us aright in making up" even the list of ancient bishops. 

Sir James Ware, the learned Irish antiquary, acknowledges, in his 
account of the bishops of Raphoe, that he cannot tell so much as the 
names of the bishops in some of the Irish sees, and he leaves whole 
centuries blank. 



216 



LETTER XV. 



The succession destroyed in all those instances in which individuals who 
had only Presbyterian baptism, and were not rebaptized, joined Episco- 
palian Churches, and were made presbyters and bishops. — Confirmation 
cannot remedy this defect, because, as Cranmer admits, " it was not in- 
stituted by Christ," nor was the Redeemer himself, or any individual men- 
tioned in the New Testament, confirmed, and because, as some of the lead- 
ing English Reformers acknowledged, "itisadomme ceremony," and 
" has no promise of grace connected with it." — Butler, who had only Pres- 
byterian baptism, and was not rebaptized, made a bishop, baptized many, 
who were afterwards ministers, and made a number of bishops. — Seeker, 
who had only the same baptism, made Primate of England, ordained many 
presbyters, and a number of bishops, and baptized two kings, who for a 
long time were heads of the Church. — Tillotson, though the son of a Bap- 
tist, and though there is no evidence that he was ever baptized, or ordained 
a deacon, made Archbishop of Canterbury. — Succession destroyed for 
more than two hundred years in the important Church of Alexandria, and 
in the early Church of Scotland, in consequence of the ordinations by the 
Cuklee presbyters. — Account of the presbyters of lona, their evangelical 
doctrine, their Presbyterian government, and the acknowledgment of their 
ecclesiastical authority by the Clergy of Scotland. 

Reverend Sir, — The charge which I have preferred 
against you in the previous letter, and which I trust 
has heen established, is apparently uncourteous. I 
have asserted that you hold, without any thing like 
proof which you would consider as satisfactory on any 
other subject, though of far inferior importance, the 
extraordinary opinion that the apostolical succession 
has never been interrupted. But the charge which I 
have to urge against you in the present letter is far 
more serious, for I affirm that you hold it in opposi- 
tion to very strong and decisive evidence that it has 
actually been broken. 

You contend that orders which have been ob- 
tained from the hands of Presbyterian ministers can- 
not be valid, because they were received from men 
who had no right to bestow them, and whom you 
consider as schismatics. Now, upon the same prin- 
ciple, it is obvious that baptism, when administered 
by the very same individuals, must be equally invalid, 
because in your opinion they had no right to give it ; 
and those who have received it, and who have not 
been rebaptized, cannot be Christians. Nor will it 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 217 

obviate this difficulty to allege, with Archdeacon 
Daubeny, that what was defective in such baptisms 
may be supplied in confirmation, when those who 
have been the subjects of them join your Church. In 
the first place, I see no warrant in Scripture for the 
rite of confirmation, or the laying on of the hands of 
a bishop on those who are baptized; and if the Re- 
deemer did not appoint it, I cannot perceive how it 
can be accompanied by his blessing, or followed by 
his acceptance, or how it can supply an essential and 
momentous defect in the mode of administering one 
of the sacraments of the Church. He himself did not 
perform it during his personal ministry upon any who 
were baptized, and surely if the communication of the 
sanctifying and confirming influences of the Spirit, by 
the laying on of hands, after an individual has been 
baptized, be necessary now, before he is admitted to 
the holy communion, it was no less necessary in the 
days of the Saviour. And the only two instances 
mentioned in the New Testament in which the Apos- 
tles laid their hands on those who had been baptized, 
(Acts ch. viii. and xix.) were cases in which miracu- 
lous gifts were communicated, which cannot, I pre- 
sume, be imparted at present to those who are con- 
firmed by any bishop. " After that the bishops had 
left preachyng," says Tindal, when speaking of this 
rite, as performed merely by the imposition of hands, 
without any of the Popish ceremonies, " then fayned 
they this domme ceremonie of confirmation, to have 
somewhat at the least whereby they might raigne 
over their dioceses. And as to that they layd against 
him in the eighth chapter of the Acts, where Peter 
and John put their hands on the Samaritanes," he 
" denies that it will establish it. God had made the 
Apostles a promise, that he woulde with such mira- 
cles confirme their preaching and move others to the 
faith. The Apostles, therefore, beleved and prayed 
God to fulfill his promise, and God for his truthe's 
sake even so did."* So decidedly was Cranmer of 

* Obedience of a Christian Man, p. 152. of his works. See also his 
Aunswere to Syr Thomas More, p. 276, 277. 



218 LETTERS ON 

the same opinion, though he was obliged to allow 
this rite to remain, that when he was asked his judg- 
ment respecting it, along with " divers bishops and 
doctors in commission," he gave the following answer 
to the question, "Whether confirmation be instituted 
by Christ?" 

" There is no place in Scripture that declareth this 
sacrament to be instituted by Christ.* 

" Secondly, these acts were done by a special gift 
given to the Apostles for the confirmation of God's 
word at that time. 

" Thirdly, the said special gift doth not now re- 
main with the successors of the Apostles" 

And said Dr. Edmonds, Master of Peter House in 
Cambridge, " Confirmation is not a sacrament of the 
new law instituted by Christ by any expressed word 
in the Scripture, but only by the tradition of the 
fathers. 

" Confirmation hath no promise of any invisible 
grace by Christ by any expressed word in Holy Scrip- 
ture. 

" There be no promises of grace made by Christ 
to them that receive confirmation.^^ The same also 
was the opinion of Jewel, who says, in his Treatise 
of the Sacraments, p. 264, " Confirmation was not 
ordained by Christ." And though Bancroft stated, 
at the Conference at Hampton Court, that he con- 
sidered it as " founded on Heb. vi. 2, where it is rep- 
resented as a part of the Apostles' Catechisme,± and 
not so much upon the places in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles," as some of the fathers had often showed, yet it 
is evident that the laying on of hands, which is referred 

* Cyprian calls confirmation and baptism two sacraments. Epist. 72. 

Bishop Bilson, as we have seen, not only admits that it was the 
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were bestowed on the Sama- 
ritan converts, (Acts viii.) by the laying on of the hands of the Apos- 
tles, and in particular the gift of tongues, but says, that this and 
these other gifts were imparted to them to qualify them for preach- 
ing the Gospel immediately to them who understood these languages. 
Can bishops bestow any such gifts now on those whom they confirm ? 

t Append, to first vol. of Strype's Memorials, p. 88, 235-238. 

X Dr. Barlow's Account of the Conference at Hampton Court, p. 32. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 219 

to in that passage, denotes rather ordination to the 
ministry, which, as Archbishop Usher acknowledges, 
is far more worthy of being described as one of the 
fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ than 
the rite of confirmation.* 

And the same is the opinion of your feilow-tracta- 
rians, for when speaking of Presbyterians, Indepen- 
dents and Methodists, (Tract 36,) they say, " These 
three do not receive or teach the truth respecting the 
doctrine of laying on of hands, which St. Paul classes 
among the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, (Heb. 
vi. 2;) and by which the Christian ministry receives 
its commission and authority to administer the word 
and sacraments." 

And, 2d It/, even admitting that it may be lawfully 
performed, though, as is mentioned in an old Walden- 
sian work, " Christ, the pattern of all his Church, 
was not confirmed in his own per son. ,t and it has not 
been instituted by him, but rests solely on the tradi- 
tion of the fathers, and no grace has been promised 
to those who receive it," not an instance can be 
pointed out in tuhich it was administered to any one 
whose baptism was invalid.% On what principle, 

* Melancthon, in his Apology for the Confession of Augsburgh, 
torn. i. of his Works, fol. 95, says, in the name of the Lutheran 
Churches, " Confirmatio et extrema unctio sunt ritus accepti a Patri- 
bus." And in the Saxon Confession which he drew up, he says, fol. 
129, « ideo non servantur in nostris ecclesiis." 

t Sir Samuel Morland's History of the Waldenses, p. 142. Dr. 
Gilly has been very anxious to show that they were Episcopalians. 
They not only, however, reject confirmation in the passage quoted 
above, but add immediately afterwards, that Christ did not require it 
or unction in baptism. " And, therefore, such a sacrament was intro- 
duced to seduce the people, and that by such means they might be 
drawn more easily to believe the ceremonies and the necessity of 
bishops." 

" It has been inferred," says Dr. Jamieson, in his Historical Ac- 
count of the Culdees, p. 206, " from the language of Bernard, that 
confirmation was quite in disuse, if at all ever known among the 
Irish Culdees; for, in his Life of Malachy, he says, that he anew 
instituted the sacrament of confirmation." 

t Jt might be maintained with greater consistency, that the obser- 
vance of the Lord's Supper, which is a divine institution, would make 
up, on the part of a Presbyterian who joins an Episcopalian Church, 
for the want both of confirmation and baptism, than that confirma- 



220 LETTERS ON 

then, baptism, when it has been dispensed by Presby- 
terians, whom yon consider as schismatics, and as 
having no authority to perform it, can be regarded 
merely as defective, and not as a perfect nullity, like 
Presbyterian ordination, 1 am at a loss to understand. 
You cannot, however, be ignorant, that many who 
had received only Presbyterian baptism joined your 
Church soon after the Restoration, and others since 
that time; nay, that some of them, though they were 
not rebaptized, have been admitted among your 
clergy, and have risen to places of power and influ- 
ence. Two cases especially occurred during the last 
century, in which young Presbyterians, without being 
rebaptized, entered your communion, attained your 
highest ecclesiastical dignities, and contributed to an 
extent which it is impossible to ascertain to break the 
succession. One of them was Butler, who, while he 
was Rector of Stanhope, baptized a number of the 
members of your Church, some of whom may have 
become ministers; and who, while he was Bishop, 
first of Bristol, and afterwards of Durham, ordained 
many clergymen, and assisted in the consecration of 
many bishops from whom your present bishops and 
ministers have descended. If, therefore, the baptisms 
which he administered, and the orders which he gave 

tion, which is a mere human invention, can make up for the want of 
baptism. 

It is admitted by the Oxford Tractarians, (Tract 41, p. 7,) that all 
that is required from an individual for confirmation is to be able " to 
say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, no- 
thing being said of a change of heart, or spiritual affections." And 
yet, upon this mere external profession, the children receive the impo- 
sition of the bishop's hands, "to certify them by this sign of God's 
favour and gracious goodness towards them," because they can repeat 
these things, after which they are admitted to the communion. How 
different is the practice of faithful ministers in the Presbyterian 
Church, where there is no such unauthorised rite as confirmation, to 
which no grace is promised, but who meet with those young indi- 
viduals who are candidates for communion for a number of weeks, or 
even months, before, pray with them, instruct them carefully in the 
great truths of religion, and in the end of the institution of the sacra- 
ment of the Supper, and endeavour to impress them with a sense of 
the necessity of faith and personal piety to acceptable communion, 
and who, upon their being encouraged to form a favourable opinion 
of them as to these points, admit them to that privilege ! 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 221 

to those who afterwards gave orders to others, in 
many of your dioceses, were invalid, because he him- 
self was unbaptized, what must be the spiritual con- 
dition of your Church? The other was his friend and 
companion, Seeker, who, as the son of a Dissenting 
Presbyterian minister, had only Presbyterian baptism, 
and was never rebaptized. After joining your Church 
he was promoted first to be Rector of St. James's, then 
successively to be Bishop of Bristol and Oxford, and 
latterly Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all 
England.* But if he himself was not a Christian, and 
yet baptized not only many of the ordinary members 
of your Church, but George the Third,! whom he also 

* " Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury," 
says the late Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, vol. xii. of his Miscellaneous 
Works, p. 171, " was the son of a dissenting minister, born in 1693, 
was baptized after the form of that Church, and studied at three dis- 
senting schools successively until he was nineteen years of age, when 
he went to the University of Oxford, and afterwards entered the com- 
munion of the Church of England. He was in 1732 nominated one 
of the Chaplains to the King; in 1733, was appointed Rector of St. 
James's. January 5, 1734, he was elevated to the Bishopric of Bris- 
tol, to that of Oxford in 1737; in 1750 exchanged a prebend in Dur- 
ham, and the Rectory of St. James's for the Deanery of St. Paul's, 
and in 1758 he was named and confirmed to the Archbishopric of 
Canterbury. He officiated at the funeral of King George the Second, 
and at the proclamation of his present Majesty, whom he had bap- 
tized when Rector of St. James's, and whom with his Queen he mar- 
ried, and crowned 8th September 1761, and on the 8th September 
1762, he baptized the Prince of Wales, and afterwards several of their 
Majesties' children. We hear nothing of his ever having been re^ 
baptized." 

t The same thing happened to Charles the First, whom Episcopa- 
lians commonly denominate the Royal Martyr for Episcopacy, and 
yet whom Dr. Pusey, and his followers among the Scottish Episcopa- 
lians, cannot consider as a Christian, though they keep the anniver- 
sary of his death, for he was baptized by a Scottish Presbyterian min- 
ister in the Chapel Royal at Dunfermline, and was never rebaptized. 
"In the month of December this year, (1600,)" says Wodrow the 
historian, u Mr. David Lindsay baptized the King's son, Charles the 
First, who was his father's successor, (at Falkland, born November 
19,) in Dunfermline, upon Tuesday, the 23d of December 1600, as a 
book in the Lyon's Office at Edinburgh bears." But how much more 
extraordinary must have been the situation of the Church of England 
during the reign of George the Third, when neither that pious and 
venerable Monarch, the Head of that Church, nor Archbishop Seeker, 
the Primate of the whole kingdom, could be Christians ! And in what 
a light does it exhibit the conduct of our present gracious Sovereign, 



222 LETTERS OS 

married, and George the Fourth, both of whom were 
for a long time the heads of that Church, and if, as you 
must be well aware, he ordained many bishops, priests 
and deacons, the injury which he must have done to 
the apostolical succession in the Church of England is 
absolutely incalculable. As you cannot, therefore, 
raise him and his illustrious friend, and others of your 
bishops who had only Presbyterian baptism, from the 
mansions of the tomb, and get them rebaptized and 
re-ordained, nor raise up along with them the bishops 
and clergy whose orders they vitiated, and get the 
error corrected, not only in the orders of the dead, but 
in those of the living, I trust that we shall hear no 
more from you, or Dr. Short, or Mr. Newman, or Mr. 
Gladstone, of your unbroken succession. And I sin- 
cerely hope, that you will inquire anew into the truth 
of a doctrine which leads unavoidably to these tremen- 
dous consequences, and that none of you will in future 
join in the lofty and presumptuous assertion, which 
you have already so confidently made, that "yours is 
the only Church in the realm ivhich has a right to be 
quite sure that she is a Church of Christ, and has 
the Lord's body to give to his people." 

But if the succession has been broken in all those 
instances in which bishops and presbyters have been 
baptized by Presbyterians, and have not been re- 
baptized, you will scarcely deny that it has been still 
more seriously injured, if any of your prelates have 
been raised even to the highest dignity in your 
Church, and yet were never baptized, either by a 

in inviting her relation, the King of Prussia, who, as he was neither 
baptized by a bishop, nor by a minister who was ordained by a bishop, 
cannot, according to Dr. Hook or Mr. Gladstone, be a Christian, to 
stand as godfather to the young Prince of Wales ! The mind revolts 
at principles which lead to such consequences. And yet these are the 
consequences of the present doctrine of the apostolical succession, 
which is gaining rapidly numerous converts in the English Univer- 
sities, and for the propagation of which in the New College of what 
the Scottish Episcopalians modestly denominate the Reformed Catho- 
lic Church of Scotland, the English Society for Propagating Chris- 
tian Knowledge have, through the strenuous advocacy of Mr. Dodes- 
worth, a most zealous Puseyite, supported by Mr. W. Gladstone, voted 
a thousand pounds. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 223 

layman, Pesbyterian, or Episcopalian. And yet 
there is reason to believe that this was the case with 
Tillotson, who occupied for a long time the See of 
Canterbury, and the primacy of England. No evi- 
dence has been produced, though it has been often 
demanded, of his having been ordained a deacon, and 
yet he was permitted to hold the office of a deacon. 
Nor will it at all appear wonderful, that such irregu- 
larities should have been tolerated at that period, 
when you consider what has taken place almost in 
our own day. " Even in later and more civilized and 
enlightened times/' says Dr. Whately, " the probabi- 
lity of an irregularity, though very greatly diminish- 
ed, is yet diminished only, and not absolutely de- 
stroyed. Even in the memory of persons living, 
there, existed a bishop, concerning ivhom there ivas 
so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing, as to 
when, where, and by whom he had been ordained, 
that doubts existed in the minds of many persons, 
whether he had ever been ordained at all." I do 
not, however, refer so much to his want of deacon's 
orders, and the invalidity of all the baptisms which 
he administered, nor to the invalidity of his priest's 
orders, which he received from Sydeserf, whose own 
orders were uncanonical, and who, as he was a Scot- 
tish bishop, had no right to confer orders in England, 
who, we are told by Birch, " ordained all those of the 
English clergy who came to him, without demanding 
either oaths (of canonical obedience,) or subscriptions 
(to articles) of them, merely for a subsistence, from 
the fees for the orders granted by him, — for he was 
very poor;" — I say I do not refer so much to either of 
these circumstances, as to his want of baptism. He 
did not receive that ordinance in his infancy, for his 
father was a Baptist ; and though he was often 
challenged to produce any evidence of his having 
been baptized afterwards, none was brought forward ; 
and unless it can be furnished by you, or by some of 
your friends in the present day, or by some of the 
clergy of the Church of England, we must consider 
him as unbaptized. But if the man who was so long 



224 LETTERS ON 

the Primate of that Church, and who made so many 
bishops, and priests, and deacons, had not even such 
baptism as could be obtained from a midwife, I leave 
it to you to say what must be the value of your own 
orders, or of the orders of any of the clergy of your 
Church, who hold your principles, and what must be 
the virtue of their ministrations, and what the pros- 
pects of final salvation to those who hear them.* 

But passing from your Church, I would further re- 
mark, that the succession must have been injured in 
all these instances in which bishops and presbyters 
were not only baptized, but were ordained by pres- 
byters, and were not re-ordained. Now that this was 
the case from the earliest ages is beyond a doubt. It 
was the case in the important See of Alexandria, 
where, as Usher stated to Charles the First, upon the 
authority of Jerome and Eutychius, the presbyters 
for a long time made not only presbyters, but bishops. 
"For even from Mark the Evangelist," said the first 
of these writers, "to the Bishops Heraclas and Diony- 
sius, the presbyters always named as bishop one 
chosen from among themselves, and placed him in a 
higher degree, in the same manner as if an army 
should make an emperor, or the deacons should 
choose from among themselves any one whom they 
knew to be industrious, and should call him archdea- 
con, "t Upon which Willet, as was noticed formerly, 

* " In Mr. Percival's Catalogus," says the author of an exceed- 
ingly able article on Scottish Prelacy, in the Presbyterian Review 
p. 30, note, "there occur the following- names, of whose consecration 
there are no records, and of course no evidence extant, viz. William 
Downham of Chester, in 1561; J. Stanley of Sodor, 1573; J. May 
of Carlisle, 1577; G. Loyd of Sodor, 1600; translated to Chester, 
1604; B. Potter, Carlisle, 1628; William Leorster, Sodor, 1633; R. 
Parr, Sodor, 1635; li. Feme, Chester, 1666; E. Rainbow, Carlisle, 
1644; J. Wilkins, Chester, 1668; H. Bndgman, Sodor, 1671; T. 
Smith, Carlisle, 1684; N. Strafford, Chester, 1689. Even the cele- 
brated Pearson of Chester, so well known by his works on the Creed 
and on Ignatius, has no extant record of his consecration. Nor has 
Lake, who, in 1684, was translated from Sodor to Bristol, and in 
the following year to Chichester; and of very necessity, no man who 
has received orders thiou>jh any of these has or can have any evidence 
that he is in orders at all." 

+ "Nam et Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraelam 
et Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 225 

remarks, " So it would seeme that the very election 
of a bishop in those days without any other circum- 
stances was his ordination." And says Stillingfleet, 
who answers at considerable length the numerous 
objections urged by Bishop Pearson to this interpreta- 
tion of the passage, "it appears that by election he 
means conferring authority by the instances he 
brings to that purpose; as the Roman armies choosing 
their emperor, who had no other power but what 
they received by the length of the sword, and the 
deacons choosing their archdeacon, who had no other 
power but what was merely conferred by the choice 
of the college of deacons."* And says Eutychius, 
who is represented by Ebn Abi Osbae as a "man 
well acquainted with the sciences and institutions 
which were in use among the Christians,"! and 
whose testimony coincides with that of Jerome, 
" Hananias was the first of the patriarchs who were 
set over the Church of Alexandria. For Mark the 
Evangelist appointed along with the Patriarch Hana- 
nias twelve presbyters, who should continue along 
with the Patriarch, so that when the patriarchate 
became vacant they should choose one of the twelve 
presbyters, upon whose head the other eleven laying 
their hands, should themselves bless him and create 
him a patriarch ; and then they should choose some 
distinguished man in his room who was made pa- 
triarch, that so there might be always twelve. Nor 
did this institution respecting the presbyters at Alex- 
andria, that they should create the patriarchs from the 
twelve presbyters, cease till the time of Alexander, 
Patriarch of Alexandria, who was of that number 

cxcclsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant; quomodo is 
exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quern indus- 
triuia noverint, et Archidiaconum vocent." Epist. 85, ad Evagrium. 

* Irenicum, p. 274. 

t "Scientiarum et institutorum quae apud Christianos in usu sunt 
pcritus. ,, Seidell represents him as spoken of in terms of high respect 
by ancient writers. And Moshcim says, vol. ii. p. 414, that "no 
author among the Arabians attained higher reputation among the 
Arabians than he, 1 ' and refers to Fabricius's Bibliographia Anti- 
quaria, p. 17"J. 

15 



226 LETTERS ON 

three hundred and eighteen. But he forbade the 
presbyters afterwards to create the patriarch, and de- 
creed that when the patriarch was dead the bishops 
should assemble, who should ordain the patriarch. 
Also he decreed, that when the patriarchate was 
vacant, they should choose either from any quarter, 
or from these twelve presbyters, or from others, some 
eminent man of approved probity, and should create 
him patriarch. And thus vanished that more ancient 
institution, according to which the patriarchate was 
wont to be created by the presbyters, and there suc- 
ceeded in its place the decree respecting the creation 
of the patriarch by the bishops."* And as it is ob- 
vious that he could have no inducement to make this 
statement, but a regard to truth, because, as he him- 
self was a patriarch, it was fitted to lessen the re- 
spectability of his order, inasmuch as it showed a 
deviation from the mode of creating the patriarchs, 
which had been recommended by the Evangelist; and 
as it is confirmed by Jerome, who was born only 
about eighty years after the change took place, and 
who had the best opportunities to become acquainted 
with the fact, as he lived much in the East, it is per- 
fectly capricious on the part of Episcopalians to ques- 
tion their testimony. Usher, who was one of the 
most able and learned of their bishops, examined the 
evidence in former times with the utmost care, and 
declared himself to be satisfied, and there appears to 

*"Hananias fuit Patriarcharum qui Alexandriae praefecti sunt 
primus. Constituit autem Evangclista Marcus una cum Hanania 
patriarcha duodecim presbyteros qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, 
adeo ut cum vacaret patriarchatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris eli- 
gerent, cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedi- 
cerent, et patriarcham crearent; deinde virum aliquem insignem 
eligerent quern secum presbyterum constituerent loco ejus qui factus 
est patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alex- 
andriae institum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilicet patriarchas crearent ex 
presbyteris duodecim usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alex- 
andria, qui fuit ex numero illo trecentorum et octodecim," &c. An- 
rials, vol. i. p. 331. 

Gibbon says that Jerome's statement " receives a remarkable - 
confirmation from the Patriarch Eutychius, whose testimony he 
knew not how to reject in spite of all the objections of the learned 
Pearson." 



PUSETTITE EPISCOPACY. 227 

be no good reason why it ought not to satisfy them 
now. If they have perfect confidence in the lists of 
bishops of some of the Churches given by Eusebius, 
though he lived nearly three hundred years after the 
time when they commenced, nothing but a conviction 
that it bears so strongly against diocesan Episcopacy, 
and the apostolical succession, could prompt them to 
doubt the statement of Jerome, who lived so much 
nearer to the event which he reports, corroborated as 
it is by another individual who himself presided over 
the See of Alexandria, and might have access to its 
records, and who will be acknowledged at least to be 
an impartial witness. But if the bishops of Alexan- 
dria, as Usher affirmed, for two hundred and fifty 
years were made by presbyters, either by election 
without ordination, or by laying their hands on their 
heads, and setting them apart to their office, I would 
like to be informed whether the succession must not 
have been broken even at the the very beginning, 
during that long period. And as Alexandria was one 
of the largest and most populous bishoprics in the 
early Church, I shall leave it to any candid individual 
to say, whether he can estimate the amount of the 
disorder and confusion which may have been intro- 
duced into other sections of the Christian Church, 
by clergymen coming into them, whose orders, upon 
your principles, must have been irregular and invalid. 
Another part of the Church where there was no 
succession of diocesan bishops for several centuries, 
was the early Church of Scotland. According to the 
testimony of all our historians, this part of the island 
embraced Christianity in the year 203, and no bishop 
appeared in it till the year 429, or 430, when Palla- 
dium was despatched thither by Pope Celestine. Such 
is the statement of Prosper of Aquitaine, who, ac- 
cording to the late Bishop Skinner, " lived in the time 
when, and the place where Palladius resided" before 
he came to Britain ; for says he, " two hundred and 
twenty-seven years before Scotland was converted, or 
in the year 430, Palladius being ordained by Pope 
Celestine, was sent to the Scots believing in Christ, as 



228 LETTERS ON 

their first bishop, (primus episcoptis.) It is confirmed 
by Bede, though a zealous Episcopalian, who repeats 
the very words of Prosper.* John of Fordun, a re- 
spectable writer, and not, " a dreaming monk, anxious 
merely for the honour of his order/' as Bishop Lloyd 
calls him, says, that " before the coming of Palladius, 
the Scots had, as teachers of the faith, and adminis- 
trators of the sacraments, only presbyters and monks, 
following the custom of the primitive Church A And 
a similar statement is contained in the Breviary of 
Aberdeen, where the Scots, before the time of Paila- 
dius, are described as " having had for teachers of the 
faith, and ministers of the sacraments, presbyters and 
monks, following only the right and custom of the 
primitive Church.^" And says John Mair or Major, 
of whom Bishop Lesley remarks, that " he was more 
studious of truth than eloquence, § in the year of our 

* Chron. Tempor. p. 26. Hist., lib. i. c. 13. 

t Scotichronicon, lib. iii. c. 8. Sir George Mackenzie, in his De- 
fence of the Royal Line, p. 26, says that "he was a presbyter and 
not a monk, as St. Asaph calls him." 

Dr. Jamieson, in his historical account of the Culdees, p. 97, says, 
"It is a singular circumstance, that however much later writers 
have affected to despise the testimony of Fordun with respect to the 
Culdees, the Canons of St. Andrews did not hesitate to avail them- 
selves of it, (I quote the passage, chiefly to show the general respect- 
ability of Fordun,) when it was subservient to their credit in the 
meantime, though at the expense of giving a severe blow to Episco- 
pacy in an early age. As there had been a dispute, at a meeting of 
Parliament in the reign of James I., with respect to precedency be- 
tween the priors of St. Andrews and Kelso; the King having heard 
the arguments on both sides, determined it in favour of the former, on 
this principle, that he was entitled to priority in rank, whose monas- 
tery was prior as to foundation." «' We have a proof of this," says 
Fordun, " from St. Columba, who is represented as Arch-Abbot of all 
Ireland, and who was held in such pre-eminence among the inhabi- 
tants, that (and he was only a presbyter) he is said to have confirmed 
and consecrated all the Irish iisttops of his time." (Scotichron. lib, 
vi. c 49.) "The whole of this chapter," says Dr. Jamieson, "not 
excepting the passage last mentioned, has been embodied in the Re- 
gister of St. Andrews." 

t " Ilabcntcs fidei doctores et sacramentorum ministros presby- 
teros ct monachos primitive ecclesiae solummodo sequentes ritum et 
consuetudinem." In lulic, fol. 24, 25. 

§ " Veritatis ubique quam eloquentiac studiosior." Hist. Scot. lib. 
ix. p. 414. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 229 

Lord 429, Pope Celestinus consecrated Saint Palladius 
a bishop, and sent him to Scotland, for the Scots were 
previously instructed in the faith by priests and monks, 
ivithout bishops."* Here, then, was another part of 
the Church, which, according to the united testimony 
of these writers, all of whom were Episcopalians, 
was without bishops for more than two hundred 
years, and which was instructed and governed by 
presbyters, not according to the form of polity which 
existed in the days of either Prosper or Bede, but ac- 
cording, as they express it, "to the custom of the pri- 
mitive Church."t 

As the Church of Scotland during that long period 
had no diocesan bishops, and therefore, upon your 

* " Anno Domini 429, Sanctum Palladium Caelestinus Papa epis- 
copum consecrat et ad Scotiam mittit. Nam per sacerdotes et mona- 
chos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide erudiebantur." Hist. Maj. Brltan- 
niae, lib. ii. cap. 2, fol. 23. 

+ Some have questioned whether Palladius ever visited Scotland. 
Dr. Jamieson shows that he laboured for a time in that country. 
1 Fordun," says he, p. 9, " confining the mission of Palladius to the 
Scots in Britain, says that Eugenius gave him and his companions a 
place of residence where he asked it. In the MS. of Coupar, there 
is this addition : Apud Fordun, in lie Mearns, i. e. at Fordun, in the 
Mearns. This perfectly coincides with the modern account." This 
parish (Fordun) is remarkable for having been for some time the re- 
sidence, and probably the burial place of St. Palladius, who was sent 
by Pope Cclestine into Scotland, in the fifth century, to oppose the 
Pelagian heresy. That Palladius resided, and was probably buried 
here, appears from several circumstances. There is a house which 
still remains in the church-yard, called St. Palladius 1 chapel, where, 
it is said, the image of the saint was kept, and to which pilgrimages 
were performed from the most distant parts of Scotland. There is a 
well at the corner of the minister's garden, which goes by the name 
of Paddy's well." 

u To this it may be added, that the annual market held at Fordun, 
is still universally, in that part of the country, called Paldy, or, as 
vulgarly pronounced, Paddy fair. This is a strong presumption that 
a church had been dedicated to him there : as it is a well known fact, 
that at the Reformation, when the saints' days were abolished, the 
fairs, which used to succeed the festivals, and were denominated from 
them, were retained. Hence, their very name from Lat. Feriae, holi- 
days. Camerarius asscits, on the authority of Polydore Virgil, that 
the precious reliques of this saint were formerly worshipped at For- 
doun," &,c. 

"According to Sigibcrt, Palladius was sent to the Scots, A. 432. 
It would appear, that finding his labours unsuccessful in Ireland, he 
had attempted the conversion of the Picts, for Fordun was in their 
territory." 



230 LETTERS ON 

principles, could not be a Church, so it is impossible 
to see how she could attain that character, even after 
the arrival of Palladius ; for as the individuals whom 
he ordained had been baptized only by presbyters, 
and consequently were not Christians, nothing which 
he did could make them Christian ministers. And 
this was especially the case in regard to those of them 
whom he raised to the episcopate ; for as he had not 
a single bishop along with him, it was in direct oppo- 
sition to the whole of the canons, that he himself alone 
should consecrate bishops. And in addition to these 
facts, which show that the boasted apostolical succes- 
sion, so far from being preserved, was not even begun 
by Palladius, so, though it might be introduced after- 
wards, (of which there is no satisfactory evidence,) 
we have reason to believe, that if it was actually be- 
gun, it was speedily destroyed after the Culdees arose, 
and during the whole of the time that they governed 
the Church. The founder of their institutions was 
the celebrated Columba, who, according to Dr. Jamie- 
son, was of the blood royal of Ireland, and who, after 
he became pious, devoted himself to the ministry, and 
coming over to Scotland with twelve presbyters, esta- 
blished a monastery in Ii or Iona, of which the fol- 
lowing account is given by the author of the Scotichro- 
nicon, under the year 560. " Columba, presbyter," 
says he, " came to the Picts, and converted them to 
the faith of Christ, those, I say, who live near the 
northern moors ; and their king gave them that island, 
which is commonly called Ii. In it, as it is reported, 
there are five hides (of land,) on which Columba 
erected a monastery ; and he himself resided there 
as Abbot, thirty-two years, where he also died, when 
seventy years of age. This place is still held by his 
successors. Thenceforth there ought to be always in 
Ii an abbot, but no bishop, and to him ought all the 
Scottish bishops to be subject, for this reason, that 
Columba was an abbot, not a bishop."* 

* " Deincops perpetuum in Ii Abbas erit, non autcm Episcopus; 
atque ei dcbent esse subditi oinnes Scotorum Episcopi, propterea quod 
Columbanus fuerit Abbas, non Episcopus." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 231 

This monastery, it would appear, was speedily fol- 
lowed by the erection of others, which as Dr. Jamie- 
son observes, " may more properly be viewed as 
colleges, in which the various branches of useful 
learning were taught, than as monasteries. These 
societies, therefore, were in fact the seminaries of the 
Church, both in North Britain and in Ireland. As 
the presbyters ministered in holy things to those in 
their vicinity, they were still training up others, and 
sending forth missionaries, whenever they had a call, 
or any prospect of success."* Nor was the number 
of them small; for they had similar institutions, each 
of them like that of Iona, (to which they all professed 
subjection,) with an abbot, and twelve presbyters, 
at Abernethy, Lochleven, Dunkeld, St. Andrews, 
Brechin, Dumblane, Muthil, Mortlach, Monymusk, 
Dunfermline, Melrose, Go van, Abercorn, Inchcolm, 
Tyningham, and Aberlady.t And whether you con- 
sider the religious principles taught by Columba and 
these presbyters, or the authority exercised by them 
over the Scottish clergy of every order, the facts 
related respecting them are deeply interesting. " The 
doctrine of the Culdees, as far as we may judge from 
that of Columba, was at least comparatively pure. 
As he was himself much given to the study of the 
Holy Scriptures," like Luther, "he taught his disci- 
ples to confirm their doctrines by testimonies brought 
from this unpolluted fountain; and declared that only 
to be the divine counsel which he found there. His fol- 
lowers, as we learn from Bede, would receive those 
things only, which are contained in the writings of 
the prophets, evangelists, and apostles.j: Hence, it 
has been said that for several generations — with the 
errors which at that time prevailed in the Church 
of Rome, they seem not to have been in the least 
tainted. § 

•Page 35. t Ibid. 105-187. 

t " Tantum ca quae in Propheticis, Evangelicis et Apostolicis 
Libris disccrc pott-rant pictatis ct castitatis opera tliligenter obser- 
rentes." Hist. lib. iii. c. 4. 

§ Jamieson, p. 29, 30. 



232 LETTERS ON 

" They rejected," says To! and, " auricular confes- 
sion," which some of your followers so earnestly 
recommend, "as well as authoritative absolution; 
and confessed to God alone, as believing God alone 
could forgive sins."* They never practised confir- 
mation, which, though it was never performed after 
baptism on the Saviour or his Apostles, or any of 
their disciples who are mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment, is practised by Episcopalians, who glory in 
their Churches as the purest Apostolic Churches.t 
" In their public worship, they made an honourable 
mention of holy persons deceased, offering a sacrifice 
of thanksgiving for their exemplary life and death, 
but not by way of propitiation for sins. They neither 
prayed to dead men, nor for them/' as the late Bishop 
Gleig recommended; for they were persuaded, that 
while we are in the present world, we may help one 
another, either by our prayers or by our counsels; 
but when we come before the tribunal of Christ, 
neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can intercede for 
any one, but every one must bear his own burden."^ 
"And they were so far," says the same writer, "from 
pretending to do more good than they were obliged 
(to do,) much less to superabound in merit for the 
benefit of others, that they readily denied all merit of 
their own, and solely hoped for salvation from the 
mercy of God, through faith in Jesus Christ: which 
faith, as a living root, was to produce the fruit of good 
works, without which it were barren or dead, and 
consequently useless."§ " They paid no respect to 
holy reliques, or to the mass; but" when they were 
persecuted for it at St. Andrews, "chose rather to 
forsake their church and property than desert their 
principles." || And when Boniface was sent from 
Rome to propagate the principles of his apostate 
Church, he encountered a noble and magnanimous 
opposition from Clemens and Samson, two illustrious 

* Nazaren., Letter 2, p. 24. § Ibid. p. 25, 26. 

+ Ibid. p. 22. || Jamieson, p. 214. 

t Nazaren., p. 26. 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 233 

Culdees, who told him, " that he and those of his 
party studied to bring men to the subjection of the 
Pope, and slavery of Rome, withdrawing them from 
obedience to Christ, — that they were corrupters of 
Christ's doctrine, establishing a sovereignty in the 
Bishop of Rome, — and that they had introduced in 
the Church many tenets, rites and ceremonies, un- 
known to the ancient and pure times, yea, contrary 
to them."* In short, their doctrine and worship, in 

* David Buchanan's Preface to Knox's History. 

The following is the account given by Bower, in his History of the 
Popes, vol. ii. p. 523, of the way in which Pope Gregory ordered the 
missionaries, whom he sent from Rome, to model the worship of the 
East Saxons. " Not satisfied," says he, " with directing Austin not 
to destroy, but to rescue for the worship of God the profane places 
wheie the Pagan Saxons had worshipped their idols, he would have 
him to treat the more profane usages, rites and ceremonies of the 
Pagans in the same manner, that is, not to abolish but to sanctify 
them, by changing the end for which they were instituted, and intro- 
duce them thus sanctified into the Christian worship. This he speci- 
fies in a particular ceremony; "whereas it is a custom," says he, 
" among the Saxons, to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to 
the devil, you must not abolish that custom, but appoint a new festival 
to be kept either on the day of the consecration of the churches, or on 
the birth-day of the saints whose reliques are deposited there ; and on 
these days the Saxons may be allowed to make arbours round the 
temples changed into churches, to kill their oxen and to feast, as they 
did while they were still Pagans; only they shall offer their thanks 
and praises, not to the devil, but to God." Such was the principle 
on which many of the Pagan ceremonies were adopted by the Church 
of Rome ; and it was for this reason, more than from the difference 
of the time at which Easter was observed by them, that the bishops 
or presbyters sent to England by the Culdees refused to conform to 
the practices of the Popish clergy among the East Saxons. 

"Boniface the Fourth," says Bower, vol. iii. p. 1, 2, " availing 
himself of the partiality of Phocas to his See, asked of him the famous 
Pantheon, (built by Agrippa in honour of Cybele and all the other 
gods and goddesses, and thence it took its name,) and having obtained 
it he changed it into a church, substituting the mother of God to the 
mother of the gods, and the Christian martyrs to the other Pagan 
deities adored there before; so that only the names of the idols were 
altered.' 1 Tnia took place in a. d. 609. And says Ranke, in his 
History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 9, " Men saw with surprise a secular 
building erected by heathens, the Basilica, converted into a Christian 
temple. The change was most remarkable. The Apsis of the Basilica 
contained an Augusteum, the images of those Caesars to whom divine 
honours were paid. The very places which they occupied, received, 
as we still see in numerous Basilicas, the figures of Christ and his 
Apostles. The statues of the rulers of the world, who had been 



234 LETTERS ON 

an age of abounding superstition and corruption, were 
worthy of the purest days of Protestantism; and if I 
were requested to name the section of the Church 
which resembled most nearly the Church of the Apos- 
tles during the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries, I 
would say, that with the single exception of the Vau- 
dois, it was the Church of Scotland. 

If such, however, was the case, it must be import- 
ant to ascertain what was the constitution of that 
early Church, and what were the powers which were 
exercised by the highest order of its ministers. Now, 
there is no fact respecting it more fully established 
than that it was governed by Presbyters. You meet, 
indeed, occasionally, with a reference in our histo- 
rians to the Scottish bishops of that age, but the term 
seems to have been convertible with that of presby- 
ter, the highest dignity of the episcopal office, as Ja- 
mieson remarks of a bishop whom the presbyters of 
Iona first consecrated and then sent to England, 
" being made to lie in this that he was a preacher.*" 
After observing that the term bishop was used then 
in a very different sense from that attached to it after- 
wards, he adds, " Ninian is called a bishop by Bede, 
and he probably received the title during his life. 
He says, that the Southern Picts were converted by 
the preaching of Ninyas, as he gives his name, the 
most renowned bishop. Ninian receives the same 

regarded as gods, vanished, and gave place to the likeness of the Son 
of Man, the Son of God." 

" The feast of the purification of the Virgin Mary," says Bower, 
vol. ii. p. 227, " commonly known by the name ol'Candlemass, because 
candles were blessed, as is still practised in the Church of Rome, at 
the mass of that day, is thought by some to have been introduced in 
the room of the Lupcrcalia, (the feast of Pan.)" He adds in a note, 
" The candles that are blessed on Candlemass-day are thought to be 
a sure protection against thunder and lightning, and therefore are 
lighted by timorous persons in stormy weather. But their chief vir- 
tue is to frighten the devils and drive them away ; and for this reason 
they are kept burning in the hands of dying persons, so long as they 
can hold them, and by their beds, from the time they begin to be in 
agony, till they expire, none of the spirits of darkness daring to appear 
where they give light." Many other Pagan ceremonies have been 
adopted by the Church of Rome. 

* Page 333. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 235 

designation from Alcuin, Boece, Leslie, and a variety 
of writers. Yet he seems to have been no more a 
bishop than Columba. Nor could Bede use the term 
in that canonical sense which was become common 
in his own time ; for he afterwards says, ' Pethelm is 
Bishop of Candida Casa, or Whithern, which, in con- 
sequence of the increase of the number of the faithful, 
has been lately added to the list of episcopal sees, and 
had him for its first prelate'* In the MS. History 
of Durham, under the year 664, and long after the 
age of Ninian, it is expressly said, Candida Casa as 
yet had no bishop. William of Malmesbury, also, in 
his account of the bishops of this see, although, after 
Alcuin, he calls Ninian a bishop, using the term in its 
loose and general sense, says, that toward the end of 
Bede's life, Pethelm was made the first bishop, that 
is, as Selden explains it, according to the canonical 
ideas of Episcopacy then generally received through- 
out Christendom." 

He further remarks, " The character of the Irish 
bishops, in early times, may assist us in judging of 
the rank of those who were ordained at Iona ; espe- 
cially as Columba, who was not a bishop, but an 
abbot and presbyter, is designed not only Primate of 
the Scots and Picts, but Primate of all the Irish 
bishops.t Till the year 1 152, they seem to have been 
properly Chorepiscopi, or rural bishops. Their num- 
ber, it is supposed, might amount to above three 
hundred. They, in the same manner with the Scot- 
tish and Pictish bishops, exercised their functions at 
large, as they had opportunity.:}:" " That bishop in 
Ireland," says Toland, " did, in the fifth or sixth cen- 
turies, (for example,) signify a distinct order of men, 
by whom alone presbyters could be ordained, and 
without which ordination their ministry were invalid ; 
this I absolutely deny ; as I do that those bishops 
were diocesan bishops, when nothing is plainer, than 

* " And he was thaerc stowe the aercste biscop." Hist. Alfred's 
Translation, vol. xxiv. 
+ "Omnium liiberncnsium Episcoporum Primas." 
X Jumiesori, p. 335. 



236 LETTERS ON 

that most of them had no bishopricks at alt in our 
modern sense ; not to speak of those numerous bi- 
shops frequently going out of Ireland, not called to 
bishopricks abroad, and many of 7 em never pre- 
ferred there*" 

It was mentioned formerly, that the College of Iona 
was administered by an abbot and twelve presby- 
ters; and it would appear from what is said of it by 
the venerable Bede, that the ecclesiastical polity of 
the kingdom of Scotland was at that time Presbyte- 
rian. "That island," says he, "is always wont to 
have for its governor a presbyter abbot, to Avhose 
authority both the whole province, and even the 
bishops themselves, by an unusual constitution, ought 

* Nazarenus, Lett. 2, p. 37, 38. 

Jamieson mentions also, that "the abbots of Hij, because of their 
great authority and extensive influence, were sometimes called 
bishops. For this reason, in relation to that monastery, the terms 
Abbas and Episcopus seem to have been used as synonymous. 
Hence, Sigibert speaks of Adamannus, the Presbyter and Abbot of 
the Scots. As the prelacy gained ground, the rage for multiplying 
bishops, in preceding ages, also increased. On this principle, as 
would seem, Spottiswood includes both Columba and Adomnan, in 
his list of the early bishops of Scotland, appended to his history. 
According to Fordun, Regulus was only an abbot. The Register of 
St. Andrews, however, makes him a bishop;" p. 336, 337. 

" There seem to have been no regular dioceses in Scotland before 
the beginning of the twelfth century. The foundation of diocesan 
Episcopacy was indeed laid in the erection of the bishopric of St. 
Andrews. In this erection, we may perceive the traces of a plan for 
changing the whole form of the ecclesiastical government, as it had 
hitherto been exercised within the Pictish dominions." " He first," 
says the Register of the Priory at St. Andrews, speaking of Grig, 
"gave freedom to the Scottish Church, which till that time was in 
servitude by the constitution and custom of the Picts. This surely 
refers, says Mr. Pinkerton, to the subjection of the Pictish churches 
to Hyona, from which they were delivered hy erecting St. Andrews 
into a bishopric;" p. 338. 

It will by no means follow, as Keith alleges, (Catalogue, Preface, 
18,) that the English would not have applied on different occasions to 
the Culdees for bishops, if the bishops ordained by the latter were 
not diocesan, and differed essentially from their own. The English 
were in want of preachers, and would not for a time attach the same 
importance to a difference in the form of ecclesiastical government. 
And he might as well have alleged that they would not have applied 
to them, because, according to the decision of the Church of Rome, 
with which they were connected, the Scots were schismatical in their 
mode of observing Easter. 



PtTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 237 

to be subject, after the example of their first teacher, 
who was not a bishop, but a presbyter and monk."* 
That subjection was cheerfully yielded to Columba, 
the first abbot, and, as would seem from the language 
ascribed to Colman, when he was ordained by the 
President and the rest of the College, it was given at 
the same time to the whole of the presbyters. And 
it was enjoined to be rendered to all their successors, 
not merely by one bishop, as is insinuated by Lloyd, 
to evade the argument which it furnishes against 
Episcopacy, but by the whole of the bishops in every 
part of Scotland, and not only in one diocese, as he 
would explain the word " province," for there were 
no dioceses in that country for nearly six centuries 
after the time of Columba, but as Gillan interprets, 
"the northern province of the Scots," of which Bede 
speaks in his third chapter, "the north of Ireland, the 
Western Scottish islands, and those parts of Britain 
that were inhabited by the Scots."! He denominates 
this constitution, " an unusual constitution," and he 
might justly so describe it; for while the Church of 
England, and almost every other Church with which 
he was acquainted, was subject to the authority of 
diocesan prelates, the whole of the simple scriptural 
bishops in the country of Scotland, who had no dio- 
ceses, were required to be subject to the Abbot of Iona, 
who was not a prelate, but only a presbyter, and to 
his fellow presbyters, whose original predecessors 
founded the parent college of the kingdom, where its 
future clergy were to be educated and ordained. 

The power of these presbyters over the clergy of 
Scotland is further confirmed by what is said by Tur- 
got, Prior of Durham, in his history of that See. " In 
these days," (a. d. 1 108,) says he, "all the right (lolum 
jus) of the Culdees, throughout the whole kingdom of 
Scotland, passed into the Bishopric of St. Andrews." 

* " Habere autem solct ipsa insula rectorem semper abbatcm prcs- 
byterum cujus juri omnia provincia, et tpsi etiam Episcopi ordine 
jnusitato, debeunt esse subje ti, juxta exemplum primi doctoris illius 
qui non episcopus, scd presbyter extitit, et monachus." Hist. Jib. 
iii. c. 4. 

t Remarks, p. 57-79. 



238 LETTERS ON 

"The learned Selden," says Jamieson, "seems justly 
to view the term jus, as denoting the right, which they 
had long claimed and exercised, of electing arid or- 
daining bishops, without the interference of any others 
in order to their consecration. Had the writer meant 
to speak of their temporal rights, or even of the privi- 
leges attached to particular priories, he would most 
probably have used a different term. At any rate, 
had these been in his eye, he would have spoken of 
rights in the plural, as referring to the whole extent of 
their property. But when he speaks of ' the right of 
the Culdees throughout the whole kingdom of Scot- 
land, 7 it is evident, that he must refer to one distin- 
guishing privilege, belonging to them as a body, by 
virtue of which their jurisdiction had no limit, save 
that of the kingdom itself. And what could this be, 
but. the right of choosing, without, any conge d'elire 
from the Sovereign, and of ordaining, without any 
consecration from a superior order of clergy, those 
who were called bishops in a general sense, or Bish- 
ops of Scotland, as exercising their authority some- 
what in the same unlimited way in which the Cul- 
dees exercised theirs?"* 

* " The Bishop of St. Asaph conjectures," says he, " that it might 
be the right of confirming the elections of all the bishops in Scotland. 
This had been done by them, (the Culdees,") he says, "as being the 
primate's dean and chapter, but was now taken from them, and per- 
formed by the primate himself.'' Here the learned prelate finds him- 
self under the necessity of conceding to the Culdees a very extraordi- 
nary power. But this power must originally have centered in the 
Monastery of Iona. This monastery, then, must have been to all 
intents the primacy of Scotland, of the country at least which has 
now received this name. This power must have belonged to the 
college, as the chapter, if it must be so. But who was the primate ? 
No bishop, from all that we have seen, but the abbot himself. Thus 
the Bishop of St. Asaph finds it necessary to admit, however reluc- 
tantly, what he elsewhere tries to set aside, the testimony of Bede, 
with respect to the subjection of " all the province, and even of the 
bishops themselves, in an unusual manner to this abbot. Even after 
he has made an ineffectual attempt to show, that the province refer- 
ed to by the ancient writer could signify only a single diocese, he in- 
advertently gives up the point in controversy, making all the bishops 
in Scotland to be at least so far subject to the Culdees, that they had 
the right of confirming their elections ;" p. 341, 342. 

Lloyd says, (Historical Account, p. 102,) "it appears there was 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 239 

But what places the matter beyond all dispute is 
the testimony of Bede in another part of his history, 
where, after speaking of the settlement of Aidan in 
England, who had been sent thither by these presby- 
ters, and of his being followed by a number of his 
countrymen, who preached the word with great zeal, 
and administered baptism, he mentions that churches 
were erected, and lands appropriated for establishing 
monasteries; "for," he says, "they were chiefly 
monks who came to preach. Bishop Aidan himself 
was a monk, forasmuch as he was sent from the island 

always one (bishop) in his (Columba's) monastery, as Bishop Usher 
tells us out of the Ulster Annals, Prim. p. 701. Usher's own words 
in the passage referred to are, ' The Ulster Annals teach us, that 
even that small island had not only an abbot, but also a bishop.' 
This is somewhat different from their being always one in his (Col- 
umba's) monastery. Usher, however, does not quote the words of the 
Annals, but immediately subjoins in the same sentence, — ' From which 
(Annals) it may perhaps be worth while to learn the first series of 
abbots. He then adds a list of ten in succession, giving various no- 
tices concerning some of them. Would it not have been fully as na- 
tural to have given a list of the pretended bishops if he could have 
done it? But, although superior to abbot-presbyters, it is not a little 
singular, that antiquity has thrown a veil over their names." 

" Besides the ten abbots of Hii mentioned by Usher, there were, 
according to the extracts from these Annals, appended by Mr. Pin- 
kerton to his Enquiry, during the lapse of about three centuries, other 
nine who are expressly designed abbots, ten called co-arb?, and one 
denominated 'Heir of Columbcille.' Johnstone, in his Extracts from 
the same Annals, gives the names of two abbots not appearing in Mr. 
Pinkerton's. But not another besides Coide is mentioned as bishop;" 
p. 48, 50. 

"In Colgan's List, as given from Innes's MS. Collections, we find 
twenty-six successors of Columba, in the course of two hundred and 
sixty-three years, and besides Ceudei, who is evidently the same with 
Coide, only one of these abbots has the title of bishop. This is Fer- 
ganan, surnamed the Briton, the third in this list, the same person 
with Fergnaus, who also holds the third place in Usher's. But Usher 
takes no notice of his being a bishop, and Smith, who, in his Chron- 
icle, calls him Fergna, gives him no other designation than that of 
abbot. His name does not appear in the Extracts from the Annals 
of Ulster. Smith also mentions Coide under the name of St. Caide or 
Caidao, but merely as Abbot of Hij." 

"To the article respecting Coide, Johnstone affixes the following 
note : ' The Abbots of Iona, Derry and Dunkeld, are frequently styled 
bishop*.' This remark seems to be well founded, from what follows 
in the Annals, a. 723. Faolan McDorbene, Abbot of Iona, was suc- 
ceeded in the primacy by Killin-fada;" p. 51. 



240 LETTERS ON 

which is called Hii, the monastery of which for a 
long time held the supremacy among almost all the 
monasteries of the Northern Scots, and those of all the 
Picts, and presided in the government of their peo- 
ple;"* or, according to King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon 
Version, "it received the principality and exaltation." 
Here, it is worthy of notice, that it is not only the 
abbot, but the abbot along with his presbyters, or the 

* " Monachus ipse Episcopus Aidan, utpote de insula, quae vocatur 
Hii, destinatus: cujus monasterium in cunctis pene Septentrionalium 
Scottorum, et omnium Pictorum monasteriis non parvo tempore 
arcem tenebat, regendisquc eorum populis praeerat." Hist. lib. iii. 
cap. 3. 

" It has been urged," says Jamieson, p. 71, " that we can conclude 
nothing from this unusual authority against the establishment of Epis- 
copacy in Scotland, because the government of Oxford is vested in 
the University, exclusively of the bishop who resides there, (Lloyd's 
Histor. Account, p. 180, 161.) But the cases are by no means paral- 
lel; for, 1. The government of the whole province was vested in the 
abbot and college of monks. It has been said, indeed, that the Kings 
of England might have extended the power of the University of Ox- 
ford through the whole diocese, had they pleased, and that it would 
not have been a suppressing of the order of bishops. But, not to say 
that such a co-ordinate power would have been extremely galling to 
the episcopate, it has been proved, that the power of the monastery 
extended far beyond the limits which Bishop Lloyd has assigned to 
the pretended diocese of Hii. 2. The power itself is totally different. 
Although the Bishop of Oxford be subject to the University in civil 
matters, as well as the other inhabitants of that city, what estimate 
would he form of the pretensions of that learned body, were they to 
claim a right of precedence regendis populis, in governing all the 
people of his diocese; and as a proof of the nature of the government, 
the same which Bede gives, of sending forth missionaries to teach, to 
baptize, and to plant churches? (Hist., lib. iii. c. 3.) The Bishop, I 
apprehend, would rather be disposed to view this as a virtual suppres- 
sing of the order." 

The supposition has been otherwise stated with respect to an uni- 
versity. It has been said, (Life of Sage, p. 52,) " When a bishop is 
head of a college in any of the universities, (which has frequently 
happened,) he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the vice-chancel- 
lor, though only a priest, and perhaps one of his own clergy. In 
reply, it has been properly inquired, were the bishops of Lindisfairn 
no otherwise subject to the Monastery of Icolmkill, than the head of 
a college in any of the universities, becoming afterwards a bishop, 
must be subject to the jurisdiction of the vice-chancellor, who may be 
a priest in his own diocese? The cases must indeed be viewed as 
totally dissimilar; unless it can be shown that the head of a college 
may be sent, ordained, and consecrated to be a bishop of any diocese 
in England, and yet continue subject to the university from which he 
was sent." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 241 

monastery, that is represented as invested with this 
supremacy over the other monasteries, and as presid- 
ing in the ecclesiastical government of the people, both 
of the Scots and Picts. And accordingly, the passage 
is thus translated by Stapleton: "The house of religion 
was no small time the head house of all the monas- 
teries of the Northern Scottes, and of abbyes of all the 
Redshankes, (the term by which he renders Pictorum,) 
and had the soveraintie in ruling of their people."* 
And we have positive evidence of their ordaining 
bishops, and sending them to England; and if they 
exercised that power in regard to ministers who were 
to labour in that country, it furnishes evidence which 
is fitted to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, that they 
must have exercised the same power in regard to 
those ministers who were to officiate in their own 
country. Bede informs us that Oswald, an English 
Prince, "sent to the elders of the Scots amongst whom 
he had been baptized, that they might send him a 
bishop, by whose doctrine and ministry the nation of 
Angles which he governed might be instructed in the 
Christian faith, and receive the sacraments."t The 
presbyters of Iona accordingly sent him Cormac, whom 
they ordained to that office ; but as his manners were 
too austere, he failed in conciliating the affections of 
the people, and was soon obliged to return. Upon his 
arrival at the monastery, the presbyters met to receive 
his report; and as the passage which relates to it has 
been considerably perverted by modern Episcopalians, 
and has been inaccurately rendered in the version of 
1723, I shall give it in the old version of Stapleton, 
who, though a zealous Papist and Episcopalian, has 
translated it more faithfully. " He returned," says he, 
" into his countre, and in the assemble of the ehlers,he 

* Bede, Hist. lib. iii. cap. 3. 

t " Idem ergo Oswald mox ubi regnum susce^>it, desiderans totam 
cui praeesse coepit gentem fidei Christianae gratia imbui, cujus ex- 
periinenta pcrmaxima in expugnandis Barbaris jam ccperat misit ad 
majores natu Scottorum inter quos exulans ipse baptismatis sacra- 
menta, cum his qui secum militibus, consecutus erat, petens ut sibi 
mittcrctur antistes," &c. Hist. lib. iii. c. 3. 

16 



242 LETTERS ON 

made relation, how, that in teaching, he could do the 
people no good to the which he was sent, for as much 
as they were folkes that might not be reclaymed, of a 
hard capacite, and fierce nature. Then the elders (as 
they say) began in counsaile to treat at long what 
were best to be done.' 7 * While they were deliberat- 
ing about what ought to be done, Aidan (who, for 
aught that appears, was previously only a monk and 
not a presbyter) rose and addressed them, and they 
were so struck with the wisdom which he displayed, 
and which they had not anticipated, that they resolved 
to appoint him in the room of Cormac, and ordained 
him and sent him to King Oswald. "Having heard 
this," says Bede, "the faces and the eyes of all who 
sat there were turned to him; they diligently weighed 
what he had said, and determined that he was worthy 
of the episcopal office, and that he should be sent to 
instruct the unbelieving and illiterate, it being proved 
that he was supereminently endowed with the gift of 
discretion, which is the mother of virtues, and thus 
ordaining him they sent him to preach."t The 

* " Redierit patriam, atque in convenlu Seniorum retulerit, quia 
nil prodesse docendo genti ad quam missus erat potuisset," &c. Lib. 
iii. c. 5. 

t " Quo audito, omnium qui consedebant ad ipsum ora et oculi con- 
versi, diligenter quid diceret discutiebant, et ipsum esse dignum epis- 
copatu, ipsum ad erudiendos incredulos et indoctos mitti decernunt; 
qui gratia discretionis, quae virtutum mater est, ante omnia probatur 
imbutus; sicque ilium ordinantes, ad praedicandum miserunt." Hist. 
lib. iii. c. 5. 

Gillan says, " What can be the meaning of his being thought wor- 
thy of the office of a bishop, and his being ordained? Certainly he 
was a presbyter before he was a monk of Hii, and a member of the 
synod, and spoke and reasoned, and made a great figure in it." (Life 
of Sage.) But what assurance have we of this? says Jamieson, p. 66. 
" Bishop Lloyd shows that many monks were laymen. Bede himself 
admits that of the many who daily came from the country of the Scots 
into the provinces of the Angles over which Oswald reigned, and 
entered the monasteries, only some were presbyters. He seems to 
say, that they all preached, or acted as catechists ; but that those only 
baptized who had received the sacerdotal office. Having observed 
that they instructed the Angles in regular discipline, he adds, for 
they were for the most part monks who came to preach. Bishop 
Aidan himself was a monk, &.c. As he had already distinguished 
those who had the sacerdotal office from such as were merely monks, 
there is great reason to suppose that he means here to say, that Aidan 
had been a mere monk before his ordination as bishop." 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 243 

same persons, it is obvious, ordained and sent him 
who had ordained and sent his predecessor, and who 
were met to receive the report of the latter. And 
these were not, as Bishop Lloyd supposes, (for he 
merely mentions it as a supposition,) the diocesan 
bishop of Iona, of whose existence not a shadow of 
proof can be produced, and the Bishop of Dumblane, 
and some other bishop, of whose presence on the oc- 
casion, if there were any such prelates, there is not 
the slightest notice, but the presbyters of Iona, with 
their president, the abbot-presbyter, or as the historian 
denominates them, the seniors of the Scots, (Majores 
natu Scottorum,) and the assembly of the seniors, 
(Conventus Seniorum.) And though Gillan insinu- 
ates, without producing his authority for it, that they 
were diocesan bishops, yet these names, Majores Natu, 
and Seniores, are never applied by Bede to such 
ministers, while he repeatedly uses them to denote 
the senior monks in monasteries, who were commonly 
presbyters. Stapleton accordingly translates the pas- 
sage in such a way as shows clearly that this is the 
only just interpretation, for he gives the following 
version of it: " Al that were at the assemble looking 
upon Aidan, debated diligently his saying, and con- 
cluded that he above the rest was worthy of that 
charge and bishopricke, and that he should be sent to 
instruct those unlerned Paynims. For he was tried 
to be chiefely garnished with the grace of discretion, 
the mother of all vertues. Thus making him bishop, 
they sent him forthe to preach." And that this is 
what the historian intended to intimate, is further 
evident from what immediately follows, for says he, 
" from this island therefore, from the college of these 
monks, was Aidan sent to the province of the Angles, 
who were to be initiated into the Christian faith, hav- 
ing received the degree of the episcopate. At which 
time Segenius presided over this monastery, as abbot 
and presbyter."* 

* " Ab hac ergo insula, ab liorum collegio monachorum, ad pro- 
vinciam Anglorum instituendam in Christo, missus est Aidan acccpto 
gradu Episcopatus. Quo tempore eidem monastcrio Segenius abbas 
et presbyter pracfuit." Hist. lib. iii. c. 5. 



244 LETTERS ON 

As the episcopate which Aidan received at Iona 
was conferred upon him by a college of presbyters, 
with an abbot-presbyter as their president or mode- 
rator, so we are told by Bede, that after he died, they 
ordained Finan to succeed him. " But Finan," says 
he, " succeeded him in the episcopate, and to this he 
was appointed from Hii, an island and monastery of 
the Scots."* And again he says, "Bishop Aidan 
being dead, Finan in his stead received the degree of 
the episcopate, being ordained and sent by the Scots,"! 
i. e. obviously the Scottish presbyters in the island of 
Iona, as is stated in the first passage. They appear 
also to have ordained Colman, who became Metro- 
politan of York ; for when vindicating his mode of 
celebrating Easter in the Synod of Straneschalch or 
Whitby, in 664, he said, " the Easter which I keep 
I received from my elders [or presbyters,] who sent me 
hither as bishop, which all our ancestors, men beloved 
by God, are known to have celebrated in the same 
manner.":}: It is in vain, therefore, to deny that the 
power of ordination was exercised by these presbyters; 
and if it was from them that those ministers who were 
sent to England derived their orders, it must have 
been they too who conferred their orders on the 
clergy of Scotland. 

It is mentioned, I am aware, by Bede, that Finan, 
"seeing the success of Cedd," who had been sent to 
preach to the East Saxons, " and having called to him 
two other bishops for the ministry of ordination, made 
him bishop over the nation of the East Saxons," and 
that Cedd, " having received the degree of episcopacy, 
returned to the province, and with greater authority, 
fulfilled the work which he had beg an, erected churches 
in different places, ordained presbyters and deacons, 
who might assist him in the word of faith, and the 

* " Successit vero ei in episcopatum Finan, et ipse illi ab Hii 
Scottorum insula ac monaeterio destinatus." Hist. lib. iii. c. 17. 

+ " Aidano episcopo ab hac vita sublato, Finan pro illo gradum 
episcopatus a Scottis ordinatus ac missus acceperat." Ibid. c. 25. 

t " Pascha, inquit, hoc quod agere soleo a majoribus meis accepi, 
qui me hue episcopum miserunt," &c. Lib. iii. c. 25. 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 245 

ministry of baptism."* He might be induced, how- 
ever, to ordain him in this way, in compliance with 
the prejudices of the Saxons, who had been previously 
in connection with the Church of Rome, though for a 
time they apostatized, and might otherwise have con- 
sidered his orders as uncanonical. And as bishop 
Lloyd acknowledges that the bishops who assisted 
Finan on that occasion were, as Bede says, " Scots," 
and as they had only like him Presbyterian ordination 
from the College of Iona, it is plain, that upon your 
principles the orders which Cedd himself received, and 
those which he afterwards conferred upon others, 
were perfectly irregular, and so far from preserving, 
they must have contributed to destroy the apostolical 
succession in the Church of England. I shall con- 
sider, however, more fully in the following letter, the 
effects resulting from these Scottish ordinations, and 
remain, 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* " Qui ubi prosperatum ei opus evangelii comperit, fecit eum epis- 
copum in gentem Orientalium Saxonum," Sec. Hist. lib. iii. c. 22. 

" It ought to be observed that Bede," says Jamieson, p. 90, " when 
speaking of the episcopate, describes it only by the term gradus, and 
not by any one expression of difference of office or order. Now, it is 
well known, that many learned men who have opposed diocesan Epis- 
copacy, have admitted that the term bishop was very early used in the 
Church, as denoting a distinction with respect to degree, while the 
office was held to be essentially the same." In what sense this dis- 
tinction has been made consult what he says, p. 331, 332. And for 
an answer to the other objections of Episcopalians to the argument 
for Presbyterian Church Government, from the institutions of Iona, 
see his able Historical Dissertation. 



246 



LETTER XVI. 

The succession destroyed in the early Church of England, in consequence 
of the ordination of its first bishops by Scottish presbyters — Scottish mis- 
sionaries who were ordained by presbyters, acknowledged by Usher to 
have christianized the greater part of England. — The Presbyterian Cul- 
dean Scottish Church, asserted in the twelfth century, before an assembly 
of English bishops and nobles, to be the Mother Church of the Church of 
England, and not contradicted. — An Archbishop of Canterbury in that 
century never consecrated, and a Bishop of JNorwich consecrated by a 
presbyter who was an archdeacon. — Succession destroyed in the Church 
of Ireland through the ordination of many of its clergy by the Scottish 
Culdee presbyters. — Eight individuals who never had any orders, Arch- 
bishops of Armagh, and Primates of all Ireland. — Succession destroyed 
among the Scottish Episcopalians, who, according to Dr. Pusey, are not 
a Christian Church. — Their first prelates in 1610 never baptized, and their 
orders irregular. — The orders of their next bishops in 1661 uncanonical, 
and those of the usage bishops, from whom their present bishops derive 
their orders, pronounced by the college bishops in 1727 to be null and 
void. 

Reverend Sir, — I think I may now assume it as a 
fact established by the united and uncontradicted tes- 
timony of our earliest historians, that the Culdees of 
Iona were merely presbyters. But if this was really 
the case, it is attended by consequences of a very 
serious description to diocesan Episcopacy. It pre- 
sents to us the purest Church on earth, with the ex- 
ception of a few handfuls of humble Christians in the 
valleys of Piedmont, preferring the simple form of 
Presbytery to your ecclesiastical polity, even in its 
most modified form; and when we are asked by our 
opponents, in the haughty spirit of Bancroft and Hey- 
lin, where was there a Church governed by presbyters 
before the days of Calvin, we can point to the early 
Church of Scotland, which from its very foundation 
was Presbyterian. And along with the noble ex- 
ample which it exhibits of steadfast adherence to the 
government and doctrine of the Primitive Church, 
while diocesan Episcopacy existed only in Churches 
which acknowledged the supremacy of the Church 
of Rome, and ivere tainted with its corruptions, or 
which adopted the superstitions of the Eastern Church, 
it furnishes an argument against your favourite doc- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 247 

trine of the apostolical succession, which I challenge 
you to answer. It was they who ordained for seve- 
ral hundreds of years, till the emissaries of Rome ob- 
tained the ascendency, the whole of the ministers of 
the Church of Scotland. And if your position be true, 
that ordination of bishops, who have themselves been 
regularly baptized and ordained by those who had 
power to do it, in an uninterrupted series from the 
Apostles, be essential to the existence of a Christian 
Church and a Christian ministry, and a covenanted 
title to salvation, it evidently follows, that the Church 
of Scotland, during all that time, even passing by the 
previous period of her history, could not be a Church ; 
nor did she possess within her pale a single minister 
or a single individual who could cherish the smallest 
hope of salvation. And if such was her state during 
that long period, I would like to be informed how the 
defect was remedied, and how our Scottish Episco- 
palians, who are the descendants of these men, not- 
withstanding their new and lofty pretensions to the 
apostolical succession, can be in a better condition in 
the present day. 

Not only, however, was the Church of Scotland 
supplied with ministers ordained by these presbyters, 
but we have decisive evidence that the greater part of 
England was planted with churches by zealous and 
active Christian ministers, who had no other orders 
except what they received at Iona. It was they, as 
we have seen, who ordained Cormac, Aidan, and 
Finan; and, in addition to them, they sent forth many 
others, who laboured with great and remarkable suc- 
cess. We have a striking testimony to this fact in a 
speech delivered in a. d. 1176, by Gilbert Murray, 
then a younger Scottish clerk, and afterwards a bishop, 
before the Pope's Legate, when the latter attempted 
to bring the Church of Scotland into subjection to the 
Archbishop of York, and the kingdom of England. 
" It is true," said he, " English nation — thou attemptest, 
in thy wretched ambition and lust of domineering, to 
bring under thy jurisdiction thy neighbour provinces 
and nations, more noble, I will not say in multitude, 



248 LETTERS ON 

or power, but in lineage, and antiquity; unto whom, 
if thou wilt consider ancient records, thou shouldst 
rather have been humbly obedient, or at least, laying 
aside thy rancour, have reigned together in perpetual 
love ; and now with all wickedness of pride that thou 
showest, without any reason or law, but in thy am- 
bitious power, thou seekest to oppress thy mother, 
the Church of Scotland, which from the beginning 
hath been catholique, and free, and which brought 
thee, when thou least straying in the wilderness of 
heathenism, into the safe-guard of the true faith 
and way unto life, even unto Jesus Christ, the author 
of eternal rest. She did wash thy kings and princes 
in the laver of holy baptism; she taught thee the com- 
mandments of God, and instructed thee in moral 
duties; she did accept many of thy nobles and others 
of meaner rank, when they were desirous to learn to 
read, and gladly gave them daily entertainment 
without price, books also to read, and instruction 
freely; she did also appoint, ordain, and consecrate 
thy bishops and priests ; by the space of thirty years 
and above, she maintained the primacy and pon- 
tifical dignity within thee on the north side of 
Thames, as Beda witnesseth. 

" And now, I pray thee, what recompense renderest 
thou now unto her that hath bestowed so many bene- 
fits on thee ? Is it bondage, or such as Judea rendered 
unto Christ, evil for good? It seemeth no other thing. 
If thou couldst do as thou wouldst, thou wouldst 
draw thy mother, the Church of Scotland, whom thou 
shouldst honour with all reverence, into the basest 
and most wretchedest bondage. Fie, for shame, what 
is more base?" &c* 

* Petrie's Church History, p. 378. He adds, "When Gilbert had 
so made an end, some English, both prelates and nobles, commend 
the yong clerk, that he had spoken so boldly for his nation, without 
flattering, and not abashed at the gravity of such authority ; but others, 
because he spoke contrary unto their minde, said a Scot is naturally 
violent, and in naso Scoti piper. But Roger, Archbishop of York, 
which principally had moved this business to bring the Church of 
Scotland unto his See, uttered a groan, and then with a merry coun- 
tenance laid his hands on Gilbert's head, saying, Ex tua pharetra non 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 249 

" St. Aidan and St. Finan," says Archbishop Usher, 
" deserve to be honoured by the English nation, with 
as venerable a remembrance as, I do not say, Wilfrid 
and Cuthbert, but Austin the monk, and his followers. 
For, by the ministry of Aidan was the kingdom of 
Northumberland recovered from Paganism, where- 
unto belonged then, beside the shire of Northumber- 
land, and the lands beyond it unto Edinburgh Firth, 
Cumberland also, and Westmoreland, Lancashire, 
Yorkshire, and the bishopric of Durham; and by the 
means of Finan, not only was the kingdom of the 
East Saxons, which contained Essex, Middlesex, and 
half of Herdfordshire, regained, but also the large 
kingdom of Mercia converted first unto Christianity, 
which comprehended under it, Gloucestershire, Here- 
fordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Leicester- 
shire, Rutlandshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, 
Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, 
Shropshire, Nottinghamshire, Cheshire, and the other 
half of Hertfordshire. The Scottish that professed 
no subjection to the Church of Rome, were they that 
sent preachers for the conversion of these countries, 
and ordained bishops to govern them, namely, Aidan, 
Finan and Colman, successively, for the kingdom of 
Northumberland; for the East Saxons, Cedd, the bro- 
ther of Ceadda, the Bishop of York, before mentioned; 
for the Middle Angles, which inhabited Leicestershire, 
and the Mercians. Diuma; for the paucity of priests, 
saith Bede, constrained one bishop to be appointed 
over two people, and after him Cellach and Trum- 
here. And these with their followers, notwithstand- 
ing their division from the See of Rome, were, for 
their extraordinary sanctity of life, and painfulness in 
preaching the Gospel, wherein they went far beyond 
those of the other side, that afterwards thrust them 
out, and entered in upon their labours, exceedingly 
reverenced by all that knew them."'* And, says Dr. 

exiit ilia sa<jiUa. This Gilbert was much respected at home' after 
that." He was soon after made Dean of Murray, and Great Cham- 
berlain of Scotland. 

* Discourse on the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and 
British, chap. x. 



250 LETTERS ON 

Jamieson, " it deserves also to be mentioned, that how 
little soever some now think of Scottish orders, it is 
evident from the testimony of the most ancient and 
most respectable historian of South Britain, that by 
means of Scottish missionaries, or those whom they 
had instructed or ordained, not only the Northum- 
brians, but the Middle Angles, the Mercians and East 
Saxons, all the way to the river Thames, that is, the 
inhabitants of by far the greatest par 't of the coun- 
try now called England, were converted to Christi- 
anity. It is equally evident, that for some time they 
acknowledged subjection to the ecclesiastical govern- 
ment of the Scots; and that the only reason why they 
lost their influence, was, that their missionaries chose 
rather to give up their charges, than to submit to the 
prevailing influence of the Church of Rome, to which 
the Saxons of the West and of Kent had subjected 
themselves."* But if the Church of Scotland, when 
she was governed by presbyters, as was asserted by 
Murray, without any contradiction from the English 
prelates, was the Mother Church of the Church of 
England, baptized your kings, princes and nobles, and 
taught them to read, converted the greater part of 
your countrymen, and ordained your bishops, and if 
some of her ministers, who conferred on them their 
orders, for more than thirty years were invested with 
the primacy, you will be bold indeed if you venture 
to affirm, that there has always been an uninterrupted 
apostolical succession of diocesan bishops in your 
National Church. And among all the strange and 
wonderful things which appear in your own conduct, 
and that of your followers, in reference to this contro- 
versy, it is one of the most extraordinary, to see you 
unchurching the Church of Scotland, and the whole of 
the other Presbyterian Churches, because their minis- 
ters received their orders from presbyters, while your 
own Church, after all your high and boastful preten- 
sions, owed its existence, and the very bishops, who 
began your vaunted apostolical succession, were in- 

* Historical Account of the Ancient Culdecs, p. 91. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 251 

debtedfor their orders, to men who had been ordain- 
ed by Scottish presbyters! 

It is mentioned, 1 know, by Bede, that when King 
Oswy decided in favour of Wilfrid, a zealous partisan 
of the Church of Rome, in the Synod held at Streone- 
shalch or Whitby, in 662, to determine the contro- 
versy about Easter, " Colman perceiving that his 
doctrine was rejected, and his sect (as the historian 
expresses it) despised, left his bishopric at Lindisfarne, 
and having carried his adherents with him, returned 
to Scotland." And he further states that after Wilfrid 
was made a bishop, " he introduced into the churches 
of the Angles a great many rules of the Catholic obser- 
vance. Whence it followed, that the Catholic institu- 
tion daily increasing, all the Scots, who had resided 
among the Angles, either conformed to these, or 
returned to their own country."* But still those of 
them who remained in your Church, after it had been 
founded by presbyters, and who complied with the 
Popish rites and canons, and those of the English 
whom they had baptized and ordained, could not 
carry on the succession, as the orders of the former, 
and the baptism and orders of the latter, had been 
received from men who were ordained by presbyters, 
and the effects of these fatal and irremediable irregu- 
larities must remain in your Church at the present day. 
So sensible, accordingly, was the Popish party, of the 
difference between the orders which were obtained 
from the Culdean presbyters, and those which were 
conferred by the diocesan bishops of the Church of 
Rome, that in the fifth canon of the Council of Ceal- 
hythe in England, in 816, it is decreed, that "no Scot 
be permitted to assume to himself the ministerial office 
in any one's diocese, or that it be lawful to give con- 
sent to his touching any thing of holy orders, or to 
receive from them in baptism, or in the celebration 
of mass, or that they should give the Eucharist to the 
people, because we are uncertain by ivhom they are 

* Hist. iii. 25, 26. "Undo factum est, ut crescente per dies insti- 
tutione Catholica, Scotti omncs qui inter Anglos morabanlur, aut his 
manus darent, aut buaiu redirent ad patriarn." Ibid. iii. 20. 



252 LETTERS ON 

ordained, if by any one. We know that it is enjoined 
in the canons, that no bishop (or) presbyter should 
attempt to intrude upon the parish of another, without 
the consent of its proper bishop. Much more should 
the receiving of holy offices from foreign nations be 
avoided, where they have no order for metropolitans, 
nor respect for other orders"* And in a letter of 
Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, written about the 
year 1170, and published among the works of Peter 
of Blois, he complains, that " in these days certain 
false bishops of Ireland, or pretending the barbarism 
of the Scottish language, although they have received 
from no one imposition of hands, discharge episcopal 
functions to the people." And he orders all his clergy, 
that " they should take care to prohibit the episcopal 
ministrations of all belonging to a barbarous nation, 
or of uncertain ordination. "t If ministers then, at all 
these periods, as there is reason to believe, though 
they had no other orders than those which they 
received from the Culdee presbyters, baptized many 
who were afterwards bishops, or priests, or deacons, 
and even at first ordained your prelates, who ordained 
others, from whom your present bishops derive their 
orders, it must be evident to every fair and impartial 
judge, that the uninterrupted apostolical diocesan suc- 
cession, which you and Mr. Gladstone represent as 
essential to the very existence of a Christian Church, 
is not to be found in the Church of England. 

I would notice only further in regard to your 

* "Quinto interdictum est ut nullus permittatur de genere Scot- 
torum in alicujus diocesi sibi ministerium usurpare, nequeei consen- 
tire liceat ex sacro ordine aliquod attingere, vol ab eis accipere in 
baptisrno, aut in celebratione missarum, vel etiarn Eucharistiam 
populo praebere, quia incertum est nobis, unde et an ab aliquo ordinen- 
tur. Scirnus quomodo incanonibus praecipitur ut nullus episcoporum 
(vel) presbyterorum invadere temptaverit alius parochiam nisi cum 
consensu proprii episcopi. Tanto magis respuendum est ab aliis 
nationibus sacra ministeria percipere, cum quibus nullus ordo metro- 
politans, nee honor aliis habeatur." Spelman Concil. t. i. p. 329. 

t Diebus istis quidem pseudoepiscopi Hibernienses aut Scoticae 
linguae simulante.s barbariem, cum a nullo impositionem manus ac- 
ceperint episcopalia populis ministrant," &c. Pet. Blessensis apud 
Seld. ut sup. 15. 






PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 253 

Church, that the canons of the Synod held at Calcuith, 
a. d. 787, as Innet remarks, "were subscribed by King 
Offa, Jambert, Archbishop of Canterbury, and twelve 
other bishops, some of whose names, and what is 
more, their Sees, are entirely unknown to our histo- 
rians."* Selden mentions an Archbishop of Canter- 
bury in the twelth century, who was invested with 
his office merely by receiving from the King the pas- 
toral staff and ring, without any consecration. "Much 
stir," says he, "both at Rome and in England, was 
touching investiture of bishops and abbots by lay 
hands, Anselm, Archprelate of Canterbury, mainly 
opposing himself against it, whose persuasion so at 
length wrought with the King, that it was permitted 
to be discontinued from that time. Notwithstanding 
this, in the year 1107, by the ring and pastoral staff, 
per armulum et baculum, (as Matthew Paris tells,) 
was, by the same Henry, one Rodolph made Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury."! And Godwin informs us, 
that upon the death of Thomas Piercy, the nineteenth 
Bishop of Norwich, his successor was ordained by 
the archdeacon, who was only a presbyter. " The 
fame of his death," says he, flying swiftly beyond the 
seas, came unto the ears of one Spencer, a gentleman 
greatly esteemed for his valour and skill in martial 
affairs, that served the Pope at that time in his wars. 
Of him with small entreaty, he obtained this dignity 
for a brother of his, named Henry, a man of his own 
profession, which of a soldier being made a bishop, 
came into England, March 16, 1370, and was conse- 
crated in his own church by the Archdeacon of Nor- 

* Orig. Anglic, vol. i. p. 203. 

t " At ab eo tempore (Matthew of Westminster after others reports 
it,) nunquam per donationem baculi pastoralis vel annuli quisquam 
de episcopatu vel abbatia per regem vel quemlibet laicum personam 
investiretur in Anglia," &,c. Works, vol. iii. Selden says that even 
clerks ordained, " and being then capable, without any new ordination 
of the bishop, of any spiritual function, would take investiture of other 
churches without consent or knowledge of the bishop. Neither was 
this practice of investitures only in bestowing of parish churches. In 
monasteries and bishoprics the like icas." Works, vol. iii. c. 1124, 
1125. Could baptisms and orders received from them be valid? 



254 LETTERS ON 

wich."* I might easily specify many similar in- 
stances, but I consider it as unnecessary; and I leave 
it to any one who reflects on these facts to say, whether 
the succession as transmitted by such bishops and even 
archdeacons, can be preserved unbroken in the Church 
of England, or among the Irish or Scottish Episcopa- 
lians, many of whose bishops, as I shall immediately 
show, derived their orders from the prelates of your 
Church. 

If the succession has been interrupted on many 
occasions in the Church of England, it follows, from 
the circumstance to which I have just now alluded, 
as well as from other considerations, that it must have 
been completely destroyed in the Church of Ireland, 
and that none of her ministers have a title to the 
character of Christian ministers, nor any of her mem- 
bers a covenanted right to the blessings of salvation. 
Independently of what has been said of the state of 
that Church as governed by presbyters before the 
arrival of Palladius, (for he visited Ireland before he 
came to Scotland,) we are informed by Jocelyn, in his 
Life of St. Patrick, that Columba, who was called 
Columcille, was the founder of a hundred monasteries 
in Ireland.! And says Notker Balbulus, who lived 
in the tenth century, "In Scotland, in the island of 
Ireland, died St. Columba, surnamed by his own peo- 
ple Columkilli, because he was the institutor, founder, 
and governor of many cells, that is, monasteries or 
churches, whence the abbot of the monastery over 
which he last presided, (Iona.) and where he rests, in 
opposition to the custom of the Church, is accounted 
the primate of all the Hibernian bishops.*' '% " On 
which," says Dr. Jamieson, "by the way we may 

* Catalogue of the Bishops of England, p. 350. 

t ''Columba, qui Collumcille dicitur, et centum ccenobiorum extitit 
fundator." Vita S. Patricii, c. 89. Messingham, p. 42. 

X " In Scotia, insula Hibernia, depositio Sancti Columbae cogno- 
mento apud suos Colurnbkilli, eo quod multarum cellarum, id est 
monasteriorum vel ecclesiarum, institutor, fundator, et rector extite- 
rit, adeo ut abbas monasterii cui novissime praefuit, et ubi requiescit, 
contra morem ccclcsiasticum, primus omnium Hibernensium habea- 
tur episcoporum." Martyrologia apud Messingham, p. 182. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 255 

observe, that the claim of superiority on the part of 
the monastery at Hii Avas acknowledged, even in 
Ireland, so late as the tenth century."* But, if Co- 
lumba was recognised as the Primate of Ireland, and 
the governor of the hundred churches which he 
founded, and if, though only a presbyter, he exercised 
the same powers of ordination in regard to their pres- 
byters or the senior monks, which along with the 
other presbyters, he exercised at Iona, it must have 
interrupted at the beginning, and affected afterwards 
the apostolical succession; and if it was broken at that 
period, it is impossible to rectify it in the present day. 
Besides, it is stated in that rare and interesting work, 
the Monasticum Hibernicum, that "Colman having 
been a bishop in England, (but having the orders only 
which he received from the presbyters at Iona,) was 
no sooner settled at Inisbofinde, (in Ireland,) but that 
place became a bishoprick; so that St. Colman, who 
had before been called Bishop of Lindisfarn, was 
afterwards styled Bishop of Inisbofinde ; and the same 
saint going afterwards to Mayo, that place was like- 
wise a bishoprick, which was united to that of Inis- 
bofinde; so certain is it, that formerly, in the British 
islands, bishopricks were not regulated and settled, 
but the bishops were movable, without being con- 
fined to any certain diocese. This is the reason that 
in the first ages we find so many bishops in Ireland ; 
for in St. Patrick's days, there were three hundred 
and fifty at one and the same time, though, as Colgan 
owns, there were never near so many bishopricks in 
Ireland. It is very likely, that when the ancient his- 
torians speak of so great a number of bishopricks in 
Ireland, they only meant those abbeys in which these 
moving or titular bishops were abbots; and those 
houses that were so numerous ceased to be bishopricks 

* Histor. Account of the Culdecs, p. 35G. 

The following testimony to the influence of the Culdees in Ireland 
is given hy Dr. Sedgwick: ''Corruption," says he, " was powerfully 
retarded by the firmness of the hierarchy and the Culdees. The 
latter were looked up to as the depositaries of the original national 
faith, and were most highly respected by the people for their sanctity 
and learning." Antiquities, p. 94. 



256 LETTERS ON 

the very moment the titular bishops and abbots hap- 
pened to die, or to shift their monasteries."* But if 
such was the nature of these bishoprics, (and it is con- 
firmed by what was previously quoted from Toland,) 
and if Col man and others of the Culdean bishops, who 
were ordained only by presbyters, went over to Ire- 
land, settled there, and ordained bishops as presby- 
ters, and deacons, they must have contributed still 
further to destroy the succession, and the injury which 
they must have done to it is absolutely irretrievable. 
And, in short, even though you were able to remove 
these difficulties, we have decisive evidence that the 
succession was broken at a still later period. Sir 
James Ware, in his Prelates of Armagh, says, " St. 
Bernard, in the Life of St. Malachy, affirms, that 
Celsus being near to his death, was solicitous that 
Malachy Morgair, then Bishop of Connor, should 
succeed him, and sent his staff to him as his successor. 
Nor was he disappointed, for Malachy succeeded him, 
though not immediately; for one Maurice, son of 
Donald, a person of noble birth, for five years, (says 
the same Bernard,) by secular power, held that church 
in possession, not as a bishop, but a tyrant, for the 
ambition of some in power had at that time introduced 
a diabolical custom of pretending to ecclesiastical sees 
by hereditary succession, not suffering any bishops 
but the descendants of their own family. Nor ivas 
this kind of execrable succession of short continu- 
ance ; for fifteen generations, {or succession of bi- 
shops, as Colgan has it,) had succeeded in that man- 
ner; and so far had that evil and adulterate generation 
confirmed the wicked course, that sometimes though 
clerks of their blood might fail, yet bishops never 
failed. Inline eight married men, and without orders, 
though scholars, were predecessors to Celsus, from 
whence proceeded that general dissolution of ecclesias- 
tical discipline, (whereof we have spoken largely 
before,) that contempt of censures, and decay of reli- 
gion throughout Ireland. Thus Bernard. The names 

* Pages 82, 83. 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 257 

of these eight married men unordained, Colgan de- 
livers in the place above cited."* If these eight indi- 
viduals, however, who were ivithout orders, were 
placed in succession, not merely in a humble station 
of that Church, but at the very head of it, or in the 
Primacy of all Ireland, and ordained bishops, exercised 
the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and performed 
confirmation, I would like to be informed, whether 
you really think the apostolical succession was pre- 
served during that long and disastrous period, under 
the presidency of men who, though elevated to be 
Bishops of Armagh, had not even the order of deacons. 
And it is asserted by Dr. Mo nek Mason, that " the 
Bishopricks of Dublin, of Waterford and of Limerick 
were erected by the Danes, and that if we take up the 
ancient letters of the Irish, which are published in 
Ussher's Sylloge, we shall find abundant matter to 
show, that the bishops of those Sees disclaimed all 
dependence on that of Armagh, and professed obedi- 
ence immediately to Canterbury."! But if this be 
the case, then, as it was demonstrated formerly, that 
the apostolical succession had been broken in many 
instances in your National Church, and had been in- 
terrupted in particular in the See of Canterbury,^ it 

* Bishops of Armagh, p. 9. 

t Religion of the Ancient Irish Saints, p. 189. 

X Neale, in his History of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 89, 90, mentions 
some things which took place at a later period, and which must have 
affected the succession. " After these," says he, " Mr. Robert Blair 
came from Scotland to Bangor, (1623,) Mr. Hamilton to Belly water, 
and Mr. Livingston to Killinshy, in the County of Down, with Mr. 
Welsh, Dunbar, and others. Mr. Blair was a zealous Presbyterian, 
and scrupled episcopal ordination; but the bishop of the diocese com- 
promised the difference, by agreeing that the other Scots presbyters 
of Mr. Blair's persuasion should join with him, and that such pas- 
sages in the established form of ordination as Mr. Blair and his 
brethren disliked should be omitted, or exchanged for others of their 
own approbation. Thus was Mr. Blair ordained publicly, in the 
church of Bangor; the Bishop of Raphoe did the same for Mr. Living, 
ston ; and all the Scots who toere ordained in Ireland, from this time to 
the year 1 G 12, were ordained after the same manner ; all of them enjoy- 
ed the churches and tithes, though they remained Presbyterian, and 
used not the Liturgy ; nay, the bishops consulted them about affairs 
of common concernment to the Church, and some of them were mem,' 
hers of the Convocation in 1631." 

17 



258 LETTERS ON 

evidently follows, that its effects must have extended 
to these Irish bishoprics, and taken in connection with 
the preceding remarks, it proves, that upon your prin- 
ciples, the Church of Ireland must long ago have ceased 
to be a Christian Church. 

Nor are the Scottish Episcopalians who have dis- 
carded the declaration of their old confession, that 
"lineal descense is not a mark of the true Church," and 
are as zealous as yourself for an uninterrupted apos- 
tolical diocesan succession, as absolutely indispen- 
sable to the very existence of a Church, in a better 
situation; for, as the succession has frequently been 
broken among them, it is manifest, upon their own 
principles, that they cannot be a Church, that they are 
utterly destitute of the Christian ministry, and that 
none of them can have a covenanted title to salvation. 
The succession must have been broken, as I have at- 
tempted to show, when for more than two hundred 
years before the coming of Palladius, their forefathers 
were governed, as well as instructed, by presbyters 
"without bishops."* It was interrupted, again, for a 
much longer period, when the Culdees were in the 
ascendant, and when the ministers of the Church, till 
the appointment of the first Popish bishop at St. An- 
drews, were commonly ordained by presbyters. It 
was broken among them repeatedly at successive 
periods, when Episcopacy was attempted to be forced 
upon Scotland for political purposes by the family of 
the Stuarts, till they were driven from the throne. 
Prior, indeed, to the first of these periods, or before 
the Reformation, Keith acknowledges that it is im- 
possible to trace the lists of the bishops in some of 
their Sees ; for, as was noticed already in one of the 

* When Palladius is said to have been " sent to the Scots believing 
in Christ as their first bishop," Archbishop Usher thinks that the 
Scots were the Irish, and that it means he was sent to be their pri- 
mate, for he asserts, that four bishops had previously been sent as 
bishops to Ireland. But it is now generally admittted, as Professor 
Killen remarks, that these persons lived after the time of Palladius, 
and Dr. Mason acknowledges that the title of primate was not then 
known in Ireland. Soe the able Defence of Presbytery by the Minis- 
ters of the General Synod of Ulster, p. 69 . 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 259 

notes, he says of the diocese of Dumblane, " the writs 
of this See have been so neglected, or perhaps wilfully 
destroyed, that no light can be got from thence to 
guide us aright in making up even the list of its an- 
cient bishops." And the same, too, is the state of 
others, for though you meet with the names of bishops, 
you have no evidence that their baptisms or orders 
were regular, and without this the names must go for 
nothing. Nay, Dr. Jamieson proves that some of 
those who are mentioned as bishops in Spottiswood's 
lists were not bishops. And the following is the con- 
fession of Mr. Perceval respecting the lists of bishops 
at the second of these periods. " It is with regret 
that I find myself unable to give more particulars of 
the consecrations in Scotland between 1662 and 1688. 
A collection of ecclesiastical records belonging to the 
Church of Scotland, which had been deposited by 
Bishop Campbell in the Library of Zion College, 
London, was burnt in the fire which destroyed the 
House of Parliament, where it had been taken for 
some purpose of inquiry. These records, I am informed, 
related to the Archbishopric of Glasgow, (which had 
under its superintendence three hundred ministers,) 
and would probably have furnished information of 
the consecrations in that archbishopric. It is possible 
that the Registers of St. Andrews are still in existence, 
though it is not at present known where." And yet, 
it is upon evidence like this, or rather upon nothing 
which they would admit to be satisfactory evidence 
of any other fact, that the Scottish Episcopalians be- 
lieve in the preservation of their uninterrupted apos- 
tolical diocesan succession. 

At the first of the periods to which I have now 
alluded, or in the year 1610, John Spottiswoode, mi- 
nister of Calder, Andrew Lamb, minister of Burnt- 
island, and Gavin Hamilton, minister of Hamilton, 
were, by the command of James the First, ordained 
at London to the bishoprics of Glasgow, Brechin, and 
Galloway; but so far was that act from maintaining 
the succession, that if it had existed previously, it 
would have been utterly destroyed. In the first 



260 LETTERS ON 

place, the Bishops of London, Ely, and Bath could 
not ordain them canonically, for, according to your 
principles, and those of the Scottish Episcopalians, as 
they had received only Presbyterian or schismatical 
baptism, and were not rebaptized, they were not even 
Christians; and though they became nominally bishops, 
yet, as they remained unbaptized till the day of their 
death, all the orders which they conferred upon others, 
after they were raised to the episcopate, must have 
been invalid. And, secondly, they were not ordained 
first to be deacons, and then presbyters, before they 
were made bishops, but their previous ordination as 
Scottish presbyters, which had been performed by 
presbyters, was sustained ; and as some, though lay- 
men, were in times of great confusion elevated to be 
prelates without passing through these inferior orders, 
they were made bishops at once, or per saltum* 
But this, you must be aware, was in direct opposition, 
to the tenth canon of the Council of Sardica, in the 
year 347, which enjoins that no one shall be made a 
bishop till he has first been ordained a deacon, and 
a presbyter. Nor was the reason which was assigned 
for it by Bancroft, namely, that the higher office im- 
plied the lower, at all satisfactory;! for, upon the same 

* " A bishoppe," says Dr. Field, in his Treatise on the Church, 
book iii. p. 157, " ordained per saltum, that never had the ordination 
of a presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament 
of the Lord's body, nor ordaine a presbyter, himself e being none, nor 
doe any ode peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. Whereby, it is mpst 
evident that that wherein a bishoppe excelleth a presbyter is not a 
distinct power or order, but an eminencie and dignity only, specially 
yeelded to one above all the rest of that same ranke for order sake, 
and to preserve the unitic and peace of the Church." If this opinion, 
however, be well founded, (and he was one of the most learned writers 
on the principles of ecclesiastical polity which the Church of England 
ever produced,) the conduct of Spottiswoode, Lamb, and Hamilton, 
in ordaining presbyters after they came from London, on this ground 
also, must have been illegal, and the orders of the whole Episcopalian 
presbyters in Scotland 7nust hace teen invalid. 

t This was in direct opposition to the doctrine and practice of the 
Church of England in the days of Archbishop Parker. Consult his 
account of " the Maner how the Church of England is administered 
and governed," at the end of Lady Bacon's English Translation of 
Jewel's Apology, and Strype's Parker, Append, to book ii. p. 60. 
" Amongst us here in England," says he, " no man is called or pre- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACT. 261 

principle, you might admit a man to the communion 
who had neither been baptized nor confirmed; and 
you might even consecrate him at once to be Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and Primate of all England, 
though he had never received the first of these ordi- 
nances; or you might raise him to the very Popedom, 
and make him the visible head of the Universal 
Church. As this, however, is so obviously absurd, 
that it would not be tolerated for a moment, what 
was done in the consecration of Spottiswoode and 
his brethren, unless you admit the validity of Pres- 
byterian ordination, must have been equally absurd, 
and could communicate nothing of Episcopal power. 
Every thing consequently which they did afterwards, 
when they consecrated bishops, priests and deacons, 
must have been equally invalid, and the Scottish Epis- 
copalians, whose succession was destroyed by that 
fatal step, which is now irretrievable, cannot, upon 
your principles, have any hope of salvation, or be 
entitled to the character of a Christian Church. 

Nor were they extricated from these difficulties at 
the second of these periods, in 1661, when Sharp, 
Fairfoul, Leighton and Hamilton were made bishops; 
for though they were ordained previously to be dea- 
cons and presbyters, they were not rebaptized ; and 
three of them had only Presbyterian baptism, while 
the fourth had merely that baptism which a clergy- 
man ordained by one of the Scottish prelates of 1610, 
whose orders were invalid, was able to perform. If 
they were not rebaptized, however, they must have 
remained unbaptized till the day of their death, 
even though they were consecrated to be bishops; 
and I leave it to you to say whether any thing which 
was done by unbaptized prelates could have the 
smallest efficacy, according to your principles, and 
whether orders derived from men, who, according to 
your Catechism, had not even "been made members 
of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the king- 

ferrcd to be a bishop, except he have first received the orders of priest- 
hood, and he be well liable to instruct al the people in the Holy 
Scriptures." 



262 LETTERS ON 

dom of heaven," in the way which he has appointed, 
could keep up in that Church, which is beginning to 
boast of its uninterrupted apostolical diocesan succes- 
sion, that important privilege. Besides, Sydserf, the 
Bishop of Galloway, to which See Hamilton was or- 
dained on the 15th December 1661, in the abbey 
Church of Westminster, was then living, and was 
not translated to Orkney till the 14th November 
1662: And as it is contrary to the canons both of 
the English and Scottish Episcopalians that there 
should be two bishops at the same time in one dio- 
cese, the ordination of Hamilton was illegal; and as 
he was never reordained, every thing which he did 
must have been irregular, and must have damaged 
the succession.* It was still further injured, or rather 

* " The olde canons and auncient fathers," said Archbishop Whit- 
gift to Cartwright, in the Defense of his Answere to the Admonition, 
M doe testifie, that in one citie there ought to be but one bishop. Chrysos- 
tome tolde Siricius that one citie must have but one bishop, as we reade, 
lib. vi. cap.22, of Socrates. Ney ther are you able to shewe from Christe's 
time, that ever there was allowed to be two bishops in one citie." 

"Cornelius," says Cyprian, in his 52d, or according to others, his 
55th Epistle, " was made bishop by the testimony of the clergy and 
the suffrages of the people, when no one had been ordained before 
him, and the Episcopal chair was empty. Whoever after that pre- 
tends to be bishop has not the ordination of the Church, whatever he 
may boast, or assume to himself. There cannot be a second bishop 
after the first, and, therefore, whoever is made a bishop after the first, 
is not a second bishop, but no bishop at all." 

" The fathers of the Council of Nice, for the same reason," says 
Bower, in his History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 373, " pronounced all 
whom Meletius of Lycopolis had ordained in Egypt, for Sees that 
were not vacant at the time of their consecration, to be no bishops, and 
at the same time issued a decree, commanding them to be reordained 
before they were admitted to serve as bishops in the Catholic Church." 
Socrates, lib. i. cap. 9 ; Theodoret, lib. i. cap. 9. " In like manner, 
the fathers of the Second Oecumenical Council, (that of Constanti- 
nople,) would not admit of the ordination of Maximus, the Cynic, 
though he had been ordained by seven bishops, but unanimously de- 
clared that he was no bishop; that he never should be a bishop; that 
the clerks ordained by him should in no degree whatever be received 
as true clerks ; all that had been done to him, or by him, being absolutely 
void and null, because he had intruded himself into a See, that 
of Constantinople, legally filled by another, by Nectarius." As 
Hamilton, then, was intruded into the See of Galloway, while 
it was held by Sydserf, his ordination must have been null and 
void ; the bishops and clerks whom he ordained could not be true 
bishops or clerks ; all that was done to him, or by him, as he was 



- PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 263 

completely destroyed, when Sharp came from London ; 
for with the assistance of Fairfoul and Hamilton, he 
consecrated George Haliburton, one of the ministers 
of Perth, to the See of Dunkeld; Murdoch Mackenzie, 
minister of Elgin, who had taken the covenant against 
prelacy ten times, or, according to others, fourteen 
times,* to the diocese of Moray; David Strachan, 
Middleton's minister at Fettercairn, to Brechin ; John 
Paterson, minister at Aberdeen, to Ross; and Robert 
Wallace, minister of Barnwell, to the diocese of the 
Isles; without rebaptizing them, or making them dea- 
cons and presbyters, though all of them, except Mac- 
kenzie, had only Presbyterian baptism and orders. 
And yet it is from these eight bishops, who were never 
baptized, and who, according to your doctrine, could 
not be Christians ; and from a ninth, whose baptism 
was equally irregular, and who never passed through 
the previous orders, which were essential to their 
legal elevation to the episcopate, that the Scottish 
Episcopalians in the present day derive their orders, 
the worth of which, if your principles be true, I shall 
leave you to determine. We know, too, that these 
prelates admitted a number of the Presbyterian clergy 
into the communion of that Church, after it was estab- 
lished by the Government, and allowed them to retain 
their parishes without either rebaptizing or reordain- 
ing them, merely upon their agreeing to be collated, 
and subscribing such a declaration as the following, 
which was all that Sharp and others required in their 
dioceses: "Lykas also I, the said Mr. James (Ramsay) 
doe declair, that I doe owne and submit to the govern- 
ment of the Kirk of Scotland, by archbishops and 
bishops, as the same is now settled by lawe. In wit- 
nes of the premises, I have sub 1 the same with my 
hand at Edinburgh, the day of September 1662."t 

never reordained, must have been invalid, and the injury which lie 
did to the alleged apostolical succession among the Scottish Episco- 
palians must have been incalculable, and is now irretrievable. 

* Wodrow's Church History, vol. i. p. 129, edit. 1829. 

T MS. Register of the Collations and Licences granted by Arch- 
bishop Sharp and other bishops, from 1662 till 1675. Both the Col- 
lations and Licenses together amount to about two hundred. 



264 LETTERS ON 

And Charles himself, in his Letter to the Privy Coun- 
cil in 1669, states expressly, that "such ministers as 
shall take collation from the bishop of the diocese, and 
keep presbyteries and synods, may be warranted to 
lift their stipends as other ministers of the kingdom." 
What was the number of the Presbyterian clergy 
who accepted these terms and conformed to Episco- 
pacy throughout the different dioceses I have not ex- 
actly ascertained, but they are represented by the late 
Bishop Walker of Edinburgh as considerable; and 
he takes credit to the bishops for receiving them in this 
way without ordination, though it overthrows the doc- 
trine of an uninterrupted apostolical diocesan succes- 
sion, which is maintained by you and many Scottish 
Episcopalians, as absolutely indispensable to the exist- 
ence of a Church. " The Archdean or archdeacon of St. 
Andrews, whose name was Waddel, or Weddel," says 
he, " was a Presbyterian minister before the Restora- 
ration. He readily conformed to the Episcopal Church, 
but he would not subinit to be episcopally ordained, 
which in England would have been indispensable. 
Well, with all the bigotry with which our poor Church 
has at every period been accused, his scruples, and 
the scruples of many in similar circumstances, were 
respected, and his clerical character ivas recognised 
without that episcopal ordination, which, by Epis- 
copalians universally, is considered as essential."* 
Now, if this was really the case, and if some of the 
individuals afterwards became bishops, and rose to 
other places of power and honour, and if, as Bishop 
Burnet declares, " no bishop in Scotland, during his 
stay in that kingdom, ever did so much as desire any 
of the presbyters (i. e. Presbyterian ministers) to be 
reordained,"t what must we think of a number of 

* Sermon in 1831, in behalf of the Gaelic Episcopal Society. 

+ Bisbop of Sarum's Vindication, p. 84, 85. 

We have seen already, p. 18, note, that a similar course was pur- 
sued by Cranmer towards Peter Alexander, and other foreign Pres- 
byterian ministers, when they were willing - to join the Church of 
England. And, says Bishop Cosins, one of the keenest Episcopalians, 
in his letter to Cardel, "If at any time a minister so ordained in 
these French Churches came to incorporate himself in ours, and to 



PTJSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 265 

the ministers and members of his Church in the pre- 
sent day, who tell us that an unbroken Episcopalian 
succession is to be found in their Church, and that the 
Established Church which is Presbyterian in its go- 
vernment is in a state of schism ? 

And as the succession is not to be discovered among 
the Scottish Episcopalians at either of these periods, so 
it certainly did not commence at the time of the Revo- 
lution, when Prelacy was overthrown, and when, a 
few years afterwards, Dr. Ross ordained two or three 
bishops ivithout flocks or dioceses, merely " to con- 
tinue the episcopal succession;" or, as Dr. Campbell 
expresses it, made them " the depositaries of no de- 
posit, commanded them to be diligent in doing no 
work, vigilant in the oversight of no flock, in teaching 
and governing no people, and presiding in no church."* 
This strange proceeding was a flagrant violation of 
the sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon, where 
six hundred and thirty bishops were present, which 
forbids the giving of orders at large, " or without a 
title," or as it is denominated, " a ministerium va- 
gum." And it was contrary not only to the thirty- 
third canon of the Church of England, but to the 
seventh canon of their own Church, in which they 
say, (and the words are printed in italics,) the candi- 
date for holy orders must " have a particular place 
or charge assigned to him where he may use or ex- 
ercise his function," and without it " no person shall 
be advanced to the order of the priesthood in this 
Church." 

It is plain, therefore, that though the succession had 

receive a public charge or cure of souls amongst us in the Church of 
England, (as I have known some of them to have done of late, and 
can instance in many other hefore my time,) our bishops did not re- 
ordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they must 
have done if his former ordination in France had been void." 

* It is remarked in a very able article on Scottish Prelacy in the 
Presbyterian Review, No. 53, p. 182, that Dr. Campbell in this pas- 
sage did little more than repeat these words of Optatus, lib. ii. " A 
son without a father, an apprentice without a master, a scholar with- 
out a teacher, a tenant without a house, a guest without a host, a 
shepherd without a flock; equally absurd was a bishop without 
people." 



266 LETTERS ON 

remained unbroken till the ordination of these bishops, 
it must have been completely destroyed, for the orders 
which they received having been in direct opposition 
to the whole of these canons, were utterly invalid. 

Nor have these evils been remedied at any subse- 
quent period, but if the following statement be borne 
out by facts, (and it is corroborated certainly by the 
strongest evidence,) it is impossible to conceive of a 
religious society, assuming to itself the name of a 
Christian Church, and according to your principles, 
the only Church (the Roman Catholic excepted) in 
this part of the island, in a more deplorable state as 
to the orders of its ministers, the efficacy of its sacra- 
ments, and the revealed and covenanted right of its 
members to the blessings of salvation, than that of the 
Scottish Episcopalians. In the year 1718, a Mr. 
Gadderer came from England, representing himself 
as a bishop, and attempted to introduce among them 
some important innovations, namely, prayers for the 
dead, mixing water with wine in the sacramental 
cup, and praying for the descent of the Holy Spirit 
upon the bread and the cup, in virtue of which de- 
scent, he said, they become " the spiritual and life- 
giving body and blood" the priest having, previously 
to his prayer for the descent, offered up the bread and 
cup to God the Father, as the symbols of the sacrifice 
of our Saviour's body and blood, once offered up by 
him. The College of Bishops resisted these innova- 
tions, denominated afterwards the usages, and refused 
to recognise him. But upon the death of Dr. Ross he 
prevailed with them to receive him; and in 1727 he 
persuaded Bishop Cant, who was in his dotage, and 
bribed Bishop Millar, who too was very old, to assist 
him in ordaining Rattray and Dunbar, two presbyters, 
who approved of the usages, and raised them to the 
episcopate.* Their proceedings were immediately 

* " Mr. Gadderer," says the author of a short narrative of the 
Episcopal Church in Scotland, from the year 1718 to 1743, "having 
contracted a familiar acquaintance with Mr. Thomas Rattray of 
Craighall, and Mr. William Dunbar at Cruden, persons as fond as 
himself of his corrupt doctrines, encouraged them to aspire to the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 267 

condemned by the college, who declared Rattray and 
Dunbar not to be bishops, and suspended Bishop Mil- 
lar; but the latter disregarding their sentence, soon 
afterwards ordained Bishop Keith, another of the 
Usagers. The college having died out without or- 
daining any successors, " the present bishops," as the 
late Bishop Skinner remarks, (Ecc. Hist. vol. ii. p. 
468,) " derive their succession from these three" 
Usage bishops, " Rattray, Keith and Dunbar." And 
in reference to them and to Bishop Millar, I beg to 
quote, first, the statement of Mr. Sievwright, a re- 
episcopate, that a party might be formed in opposition to the college 
for promoting this doctrine more effectually by their own authority 
as bishops. To facilitate the promotion of these two men no pains 
was spared ; among others money was offered first to Bishop Ross at 
Cupar of Fife, upon condition that he would assist in their consecra- 
tion, and upon his refusing, next to Bishop Millar at Leith, who was 
prevailed upon to accept the bribe; and accordingly, with the assis- 
tance of Bishop Cant in Edinburgh, (both of them old men,) and Mr. 
Gadderer, consecrated these gentlemen, without the knowledge or 
consent of the other bishops, six in number, viz. Bishops Alexander 
Duncan, David Freebairn, James Ross, John Auchterlonie, David 
Ranken and John Gillan. This happened in 1727; and immediately 
after, these six suspended Millar upon account of the unworthy part 
he had acted previous to the irregular consecration of these Usagers. 
After this there were two different sets of bishops in Scotland, viz. 
the Usage party, Cant, Millar, Gadderer, Rattray and Dunbar, and 
the six above-mentioned members of the college. The former were 
indefatigable in undermining the interest of the latter. Mr. Keith, 
another of the Usage party, was consecrated by Millar while he was 
under suspension. The sentence of suspension against Bishop Mil- 
lar was issued out in June 1727, and he died under it in October 
next." 

Gadderer's orders were invalid. He was ordained at London in 
1712 by Dr. Hickes, and two Scottish bishops, Falconer and Camp- 
bell. The two latter had no authority according to the canons to 
confer orders in England, and consequently the ordination of Gad- 
derer was schismatical. And with regard to Hickes, who was or- 
dained by White, I.loyd and Turner, three nonjuror bishops, who 
had been deprived of their Sees, even Mr. Perceval says, " Under 
what plea consecration p( rformed in the province of Canterbury, 
without consultation or approval of the bishops of the province, whose 
legitimate institution was never called in question, and without the 
approval of the now existing metropolitan, can be regarded otherwise 
than irregular and schismatical, I am at a loss to conceive." Papers, 
vol. ii. p. 223. 

Rattray, who was a man of property, and was anxious to be made 
a bishop, furnished the bribe which was given to Millar. 



268 LETTERS ON 

spectable Episcopal minister, and next the deed of 
the college respecting the ordination of Messrs. Rat- 
tray and Dunbar, and their sentence suspending 
Bishop Millar. 

" As Messrs. Rattray, Dunbar and Leith," says Mr. 
Sievwright, "never had regular and canonical orders, 
(the promotion of the two first having been declared 
most irregular and uncanonical,) in the judgment of 
the majority, six orderly against the three disorderly 
of the bishops in Scotland at that time, and the pro- 
motion of this last no less so of consequence, as hav- 
ing been carried on by Bishop Millar and his party, 
when he the said Bishop Millar was under suspension; 
and as, for this reason, these men's pretension to the 
title and jurisdiction of bishops were null and void, 
according to the express words of the sentence issued 
out against them by the majority foresaid, which sen- 
tence stands unrepealed to this day, and attested by 
the subscriptions of Bishops Duncan, Freebairn, Ross, 
Auchterlonie, Ranken and Gillan, who denounced it, 
therefore the pretensions of the successors in office of 
Messrs Rattray, Dunbar and Keith, whereby they 
claim the title of bishop and episcopal jurisdiction, as 
being by them, and them alone, appointed and pro- 
moted to their imaginary episcopate, must be esteemed 
(upon all church principles) equally void and null ; it 
being impossible that any can communicate more per- 
fect orders, or claims to episcopal jurisdiction, than 
they themselves possess."* 

Extract from the original subscribed Deed, above 
referred to. 

" We, the majority of the College of Bishops, con- 
veened at Edinburgh, have thought ourselves obliged 
in conscience to declare, and by these presents do 
declare the said election to be null and void, and their 

* Principles, Political and Religious, by Norman Sievwright, A. M 
Presbyter of the Communion of the Church of England, as by law 
established, and Minister to the authorised Episcopal Congregation 
in Brechin. Edin. 1767, p. 301, 302. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 269 

consecrations most irregular and uncanonical, and that 
the said Dr. Rattray and Mr. Dunbar are no bishops 
of this Church, and ought to claim no power or juris- 
diction as such. Wherefor we discharge all the clergy 
from owning or submitting themselves to them, or 
giving them any obedience as bishops of this Church, 
&c ; and appoint this to be intimated. Given at 
Edinburgh, the 29th of June 1727, and subscribed 
by us. 

Jo. AUCHTERLONIE, Bishop. 

Da. Ranken, Bp. 
Jo. Gillan, Bishop. 
Alex. Duncan, Preses. 
David Freebairn, Bishop. 
Ja. Ross, Bpp." 

Extract from Sentence of Suspension on Bishop 
Millar. 

"June 28, 1727. The College of Bishops being 
met, &c, find themselves obliged, for recovering the 
peace and unity of this Church, so miserably violated 
and broken by him, to suspend, and by these presents 
do suspend the said Bishop Arthur Millar from the 
exercise of any part of the episcopal office within this 
National Church, and particularly within the diocese 
of Edinburgh, to which we have declared he has no 
right or title, aye and while he give satisfaction to our 
reasonable overtures formerly made to him, both by 
word and writ; and appoint these presents to be 
intimated to the said Bp. Arthur Millar, and to the 
presbyters of the diocese of Edinburgh, that none 
concerned may pretend ignorance. "* 

I leave these documents, the genuineness of which 
will scarcely, I presume, be questioned by any one, to 
speak for themselves, and I would like to know 
whether you consider the orders of the present bishops 
of the Scottish Episcopalians, which have been derived 
from those who had no right to bestow them, as good 

* Extracted from a MS. Collection of Holograph Documents in 
the possession of the Rev. Thomas iM'Crie, Edinburgh. 



270 LETTERS ON 

and valid, and whether yon regard their Church as a 
Christian Church, and its members as having a cove- 
nanted title to salvation. You will hardly, I appre- 
hend, venture to do this; and if the orders of their 
bishops are utterly irregular, and the ministrations of 
their clergy are consequently destitute of the smallest 
efficacy, Mr. Doddsworth and Mr. Gladstone, and those 
of your bishops who are patronising them so zealously 
against the Scottish Establishment, would confer on 
them a greater and more important favour, than the 
grants which they have procured for them from the 
Society for propagating Christian Knowledge, if they 
could assist them in recovering the apostolic succes- 
sion, and could restore them to the character of a 
Christian Church. 

It is scarcely necessary, after facts like these, to 
inquire whether none of them, though baptized in 
infancy by Presbyterian Dissenters, or ministers of . 
the Establishment, and never rebaptized, have not 
afterwards, when admitted into the communion of 
that Church, been made presbyters and bishops, while, 
according to your principles, they are not even Chris- 
tians, and whether instances of the kind are not to be 
found among her prelates in the present day. Nay, 
I might further inquire, whether there are not some 
among her presbyters, who not only have nothing 
more than Presbyterian baptism, but were Presby- 
terian elders, and who, though never rebaptized, are 
permitted to baptize and administer the Eucharist to 
the members of their congregations, and who, though 
the orders of her bishops were regular and canonical, 
would injure the succession. I do not positively affirm 
that there are such instances, but only inquire whether 
it is not actually the case ; and if it should turn out to 
be so, it only serves to illustrate the extreme inconsis- 
tency and folly of those, who though they no longer 
venture to repeat the cry of no bishop, no king,* 

* It is curious that Infidels and Papists have brought the very same 
objection against Protestantism in general, which Episcopalians in 
the days of the Stuarts used to advance against Presbyterianism, 
namely, that it is unfavourable to monarchy. See in proof of this, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 271 

repeat another no less revolting to the feelings of 
every enlightened Christian, no bishop, no church, no 
ministry, no sacraments, and no hope of salvation. 
I am, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

with an excellent refutation of Montesquieu, who recommends Popery 
as preferable to it in this respect, because the Pope is an ecclesiasti- 
cal monarch, Froman's Disputatio de Protestantium Religione regali 
civitatis generi accommodata, torn. ii. of his Dissertations, and the 
Nova Acta Histor. Eccles. Vinar. vol. i. p. 5, where there is an admir- 
able Lettre d'un Patriote sur la tolerance civile des Protestans de 
France, et sur les avantages qui en resulteroient pour le Royaume, 
1756. 

The testimony which Lord Bacon bears to the loyalty of Presby- 
terians in his day, and the injuries which they sustained, is very 
valuable. "The wrongs of them which are possessed of the govern- 
ment of the Church towards the other," says he, in his Treatise of 
Church Controversies, vol. iv. of his Works, p. 427, " may hardly be 
dissembled and excused. They have charged them as though they 
denied tribute to Caesar, and withdrew from the civil magistrate the 
obedience which they have ever performed, and taught. They have 
sorted and coupled them with the family of love, ivhose heresies they 
have laboured to destroy and confute. They have been swift of credit 
to receive accusations against them, from those that have quarrelled 
with them but for speaking against sin and vice. Their accusations 
and inquisitions have been strict, swearing men to blanks and gene- 
ralities, not included within compass of matter certain which the 
party who is to take the oath may comprehend, which is a thing 
captious and strainable." " And as for the easy silencing them in 
such great scarcity of preachers, it is to punish the people and not 
them" 



272 



LETTER XVH. 

The Church of Denmark, as its first superintendents were only presbyters, 
and after the Reformation received imposition of hands only from Bugen- 
hagen, a single Lutheran presbyter, without the succession, and upon the 
principles of Dr. Pusey, not a Christian Church.— The same, too, the con- 
dition of the Church of Sweden, and of all the foreign Protestant 
Churches which have only superintendents. — Superintendents both among 
Lutherans and Calvinists, when appointed to their office not ordained 
anew, but appointed merely the chairmen or moderators of presbyters, by 
whom they may be deposed. — Their Churches, of course, not Christian 
Churches. — Account of the Ancient Scottish superintendents, whose office 
is misrepresented by Episcopalians. — The Church of Prussia not a Church, 
nor the Protestant Churches of France, Geneva, Switzerland, Holland, 
America and Scotland. — The Presbyterians in Ireland and Great Britain, 
with the Methodists and Independents, not Churches, and their members 
without any covenanted title to salvation. — The succession destroyed in 
the Church of Rome — Pagans baptized some who became ministers — lay- 
men ordained to be bishops — bishops often ordained to Sees which were 
not vacant — This the case with Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. 

Reverend Sir, — If the condition of the Churches of 
England and Ireland, as well of the Scottish Episco- 
palians, according to your principles, be exceedingly 
alarming, because they have lost the uninterrupted 
apostolic succession, the rest of the Protestant Episco- 
palian Churches are in a similar state, and none of 
their ministers, any more than yours, can have the 
smallest confidence in the validity of their orders, nor 
the holiest of their members any hope of being received 
into the abodes of blessedness. Such must be the 
condition of the Church of Denmark, for, as is stated 
by Gerdesius, Messenius and Des Roches, and acknow- 
ledged by King, a zealous Episcopalian, the whole of 
the bishops were deprived at the Reformation, and 
were succeeded by ministers under the name of Super- 
intendents, who had previously been only priests or 
deacons. " But when the Popish bishops," says the 
first of these writers, "had been vanquished, and 
expelled from their Sees, the King took care that the 
very same year there should be ordained in their room 
seven others, and these evangelical ministers, which 
was performed by the same Pomeranian. They were 
enjoined to attend to the churches, and to watch over 
their affairs, and were called superintendents rather 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 273 

than bishops. The following were those who were 
thus ordained: Peter Palladius, who was appointed 
superintendent or bishop of the diocese of Zealand; 
Francis Wormordus, a Carmelite of Elsineur, and a 
minister, and Professor of Theology at Malmoe, of 
the Scanic diocese; George Fihurg, a minister of 
Copenhagen, of the Fionic diocese; John Vandal, a 
reader of Hatterslebe, of the Ripensian diocese; Mat- 
thias Langius, a Radnensian minister, of the Arhusian 
diocese; James Scaningius, minister of Fiburgh, of 
the diocese ; and Peter Thomas, minister of Torn, 

of the Alburgensian diocese."* And as such was the 
rank of the first Danish superintendents, prior to their 
elevation to their new dignity, so the person who or- 
dained them was the celebrated Bugenhagen, who, 
according to Moreri, was only a presbyter before his 
conversion to Protestantism,t and who, as is mentioned 
by Seckendorf,! had been appointed by Luther, who, 
too, was but a presbyter, superintendent of Wittem- 
berg. " Bugenhagen," says Professor Mallet in his 
History of Denmark, " had orders to choose from the 

* "Cum vero ita sedibus suis pulsi motique essent Episcopi Pon- 
tificii," &lc. Introduction in Histor. Evangel. Renovat. torn. iii. p. 
111. This account is confirmed by the second of these authors, in 
his Schondia Illustrata, p. 79, 80, though there is a trivial difference 
as to some of the names, and the day of ordination. "Immediately 
after this," says he of Bugenhagen, "he imparted his benediction to 
the first seven Superintendents of Denmark, namely, Franciscus 
Vormundus, &c. Inde autem, 14 die Augusti," &c. And says Des 
Roches, in his Histoire de Dannemark, torn. v. p. 132, " In place of 
the seven bishops of Denmark, he consecrated in the Cathedral Church 
of Copenhagen seven divines, by order of the King and the Senate, 
under the title of superintendents, though they still retained also that of 
bishops. A la place des sept Eveques de Dannemarc, — consccra dans 
TEgliseCathedrale," &c. " In Denmark," says King in his Miscel- 
lanies, p. 183, "at the Reformation, none of the Popish bishops would 
embrace it, but all, because of their errors, were deposed, and then 
the new superintendents, according to Luther's institution in Ger- 
many, were ordained by Dr. Bugenhagen from Wittenberg." 

t See his Dictionnaire Historique, torn. ii. p. 361, where he says, 
"Jean Bugenhagen, ministre Protestante, ne le 24 Juin 1485 a Wol- 
lin dans la Pomeranie, enseigna dans son pays, s'y fit pretre, et y fut 
considere cominc un des plus savans hommes dc son temps." After 
which he gives an account of the way in which he was converted to 
Luthcranism. 

t Commentaries, lib. i. sec. 45. 

18 



274 LETTERS ON 

Protestant ministers, seven who were most esteemed 
for their deportment and knowledge. Of these, the most 
distinguished were Palladins, who had the diocese of 
Zeland, and Vormordns, who had that of Scania; the 
last had formerly heen a Carmelite at Elsineur, and 
afterwards a theologian at Malmoe. The ceremony 
of their consecration was very simple. After the 
singing of some hymns, Bugenhagen ordained them 
with imposition of hands, and addressed to them a 
discourse, pointing out to them the nature of tneir 
duties."* And not only did he ordain these superin- 
tendents, but, according to Clark,t remained in the 
country a considerable time, and ordained many min- 
isters. This took place in 1537; and we are informed 
by Molesworth, that, in 1692, the Church of Denmark 
was still governed by superintendents. "There are," 
says he, "six superintendents in Denmark, who take 
it very kindly to be called Bishops, and my Lord; 
viz. one in Zealand, one in Funen, and four in Jut- 
land. There are also four in Norway. These have 
no temporalities, keep no ecclesiastical courts, have no 
cathedrals with prebends, canons, deans, sub-deans, 
&c, but are only primi inter pares, having the rank 
above the inferior clergy of their provinces, and the 
inspection into their doctrine and manners.";}: I may 
add, that though they are not allowed, like Lords of 
Parliament, to sit in the Supreme Court of the king- 

* "Bugenhag eut ordre de choisir parmi les ministres Protestans 
sept dcs plus estimes par leur moeurs et par leur savoir," &.c. torn, 
vi. p 366. 

He add?, " Apres cela Bugenhag fut charge de dresser un formu- 
laire de foi et de discipline suivant lequel les ecclesiastiqucs des roy- 
aumes, et dcs duches, et tous ceux a qui Pinstruction des fideles etoit 
confie devoient se reglcr. Elle iut composee en Latin sous le tilre 
(VOrdoiinanc.e Eccleaiuslique, apres avoir ete liee et approuvee par 
Luther et par les autres Docteurs les plus celebres de PUniversite de 
Witternberg, le Roi, le Senat, les etats l'ayant confirmee la firent 
imprimer en Danois, et Penvoyerent aux Eglises de Norvege et de 
Sleswig, pour qu'ellcs s'y conformassent, aussi bien que ceiles de 
Dannemark, comme ellcs Pont touiours fait depuis iusqu'a ce jour." 
P. 367, 368. 

t Compare his Lives of the Fathers, p. 253. 

t Molesworth's Account of Denmark, p. 231. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 275 

dom, yet that privilege is conceded to two of them 
when any matter comes before it which affects the 
Church. But if such be the source from which the 
superintendents or bishops of Denmark, and the 
inferior clergy, have derived their orders for more 
than three hundred years; and if such be the powers 
which are entrusted to them by the State, I presume 
that you, and those Scottish Episcopalians who hold 
your principles, are prepared to consign the Protestant 
nation, not only in the present day, but through all 
those generations which have succeeded the Reforma- 
tion, to God's uncovenanted mercies, and to say, that, 
during that long and eventful period, they have been 
without a church and .without a ministry, and that 
none of them has ever been possessed of a title to the 
blessings of salvation. 

The Swedish Church at the time of the Reforma- 
tion, as I noticed formerly, is said by Messenius to 
have had four superintendents, with an arch-superin- 
tendent, who, prior to his ordination, was a teacher at 
Upsal.* He does not mention by whom they were 
ordained; but if, as is probable, it was by Lutheran 
presbyters, their orders would labour under the same 
defects with those of the Danish superintendents. But, 
independently of this, if those who ordained them 
derived their orders from Popish bishops, I shall en- 
deavour to show that they could not be valid, because 
the succession has been broken in that apostate Church, 
And if I succeed in establishing the latter position, it 
follows, that upon your principles the Church of 
Sweden also must cease to be regarded as a Christian 
Church, and that there is not an individual in that 
kingdom who can have any hope of salvation. 

The situation of those Churches which are governed 
by superintendents is equally deplorable, for they 
want the apostolical diocesan succession, and conse- 
quently cannot be recognised as Christian Churches. 
No new ordination takes place when any one is 
appointed a superintendent. In the tenth regulation 

* See note, p. 63-9. 



276 LETTERS ON 

of the Synodus Xanensis, it is said that " his office 
ought to continue from synod to synod, and that by 
the decision of the synod he shall either be approved 
of and retained, or another shall be chosen and appoint- 
ed."* And though his presidency now is more per- 
manent, yet, as is proved by Parker, on the authority 
of Zepper, Hemingius and Herbrand, both in the Cal- 
vinistic and Lutheran Churches, where such an officer 
exists, he is only the chairman or moderator of the pres- 
byters, the primus inter pares, has no such authority 
over them as an English prelate has over his presby- 
ters, and may even be judged and deposed by them.t 
But if such be the case, how dismal in your opinion 
must be the state of all those Protestant Churches 

* " Munus ejus a synodo ad synodum durare debet. Et juxta sen- 
tentiam synodi aut is retinendus et approbandus, aut alius eligendus 
et constituendus erit." 

t In his Politeia Eeclesiastica, lib. i. cap. 28, p. 79, he gives the 
following very distinct account of the office of the superintendent, 
from Scultingius, lib. v. fol. 14. "Nono, tametsi Lutherani omnes, 
et Calviniani etiam quidam, ut Zepperus, Pastor Herbonensis, et alii 
superintendentes constituant, tamen isti adeo inter se dissident, ut 
nemo alteri velit cedere. Decimo, inter episcopum et sacerdotem nihil 
omnino statuunt discriminis. (They make no difference between the 
power of a bishop and a presbyter.) Quod ad secundum, authorita- 
tem scilicet in reliquos ministros episcopum Anglicanum habere, 
inspectorem Germanicum non item. Hoc ex Gulielmo Zeppero liquet, 
qui non obstante superintendentis prasidentia nullam tamen altero 
majorem authoritatem vel in verbi et sacramentorum ministerio, inque 
disciplinae ecclesiasticae usu obtinere dicit. Addit etiam de ipso 
superintendente, (lib. ii. p. 322-324,) quod in disciplinae ipsius ratione 
aliis subjectus sit, quod illius praesidentiae hoc tantum munus sit 
quod ecclesiae suae classi operam suam plus aliis ministris omnibus 
impendere teneatur, quod causas difficiliores ad consistoriorum legiti- 
mam cognitionem, et adjudicationem devolvere debeat, quod denique 
ministri et seniores earum ecclesiarum quibus praeest de eo statuere, 
de eo judicare, eum punire, imo etiam quemadmodum eligebant pri- 
inum, ita etiam deponere et destituere possent. Id ipsum de Luthe- 
ranis superintendentibus dicendum est, (p. 329 :) Seniores enim ag- 
noscit Nicolaus Hemingius, ita episcopo atque superintendenti suo, 
nihil aliud relinquit nisi illam in consistorio quam nuper descripsimus 
praesidentiam, id quod etiam ab ipsius verbis liquet. Ita enim inter 
caetera habet, qui labore et donis reliquos antecedit, is ab ecclesia 
praefertur, non ut dominium super caeteros exerceat, sed ut alios 
regat sapientia ct consilio. In testimonio vero Herbrandi ab eodem 
citato apparet istud adhuc luculentius, disserta enim verba Herbrandi 
allegat in quibus dicit superintendentem nullum in caeteros potesta- 
tem habere." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 277 

where superintendents merely preside, and have no 
greater power than that of a moderator in an assem- 
bly of presbyters, and may even be deprived of their 
office by their fellow-presbyters. And yet this is the 
condition of the Church of Prussia, where there are 
no diocesan bishops, though the King is reported, in 
opposition to the principles of his illustrious ancestor, 
whose name is affixed to the Articles of Smalkald, to 
be anxious to have them, but who must apply for them 
elsewhere than to the prelates of your Church, or of 
the Scottish Episcopalians, if he would establish a pure 
apostolical succession. And it is the condition of all 
those other Churches which resemble it in their form 
of ecclesiastical polity, none of which, any more than 
the Church of Prussia, has a single minister whose 
orders, upon your principles, can be considered as 
valid, nor a single member who has a covenanted title 
to the blessings of salvation.* 

* The Church of Scotland, for a short time after the Reformation, 
had a few superintendents, but they differed from those of the con- 
tinental churches in this, that while the latter was intended to be a 
permanent class of ministers, and have continued for several hundred 
years, the Scottish superintendents were intended only to be tem- 
porary, and were to cease when the parishes were supplied with 
pastors. (.See First Book of Discipline, where it is said to be " ex- 
pedient" merely, " at this time.'''') Episcopalians have represented 
them as a kind of bishops. But, says the learned author of the 
Apologeticall Relation of the particular Sufferings of the faithful Min- 
isters and Professours of the Church of Scotland, since August 1660, 
p. 13, "so cautious were the Reformers, that they would not acknow- 
ledge those to be bishops, either in name or thing; for as their work 
was extraordinary, so they gave them an extraordinary name. They 
would not suffer any who had been bishops before in time of Popery to 
enjoy the place and power of a superintendent, least the power and 
place might be abused, and at length degenerate into the old power of 
prelates ; but even in those bounds where such lived did appoint others 
to superintend, as Mr. Pont in Galloway. They would not divide the 
bounds of those superintendents according to the prelats' dioceses, but 
after another manner. They divided the land into ten parts, having 
respect to the edification and advantage of the poor people. The 
superintendents were chosen by the consent of the whole bounds 
which they were to visite. They were not consecrated, but only set 
apart to that worke by preaching and prayer, as is to be seen in the 
order prefixed to the old Psahne books. They were tryed and ex- 
amined by the ministers of these bounds. They had other ministers 
conjunct with them when they ordained any. Neither had they sole 
power of excommunication; for Reformed Churches had power, by 



278 LETTERS ON 

I tftke it for granted, that you entertain a similar 
opinion of the spiritual condition of the Church of 
Scotland, and of the different bodies of our Presbyte- 
rian Dissenters, as well as of the Presbyterians in Ire- 
land, the Methodists, Presbyterians, Independents and 
Baptists in England, and the Presbyterians in France, 
Geneva, Switzerland, Holland and North America, 
none of whose ministers, for two hundred years, can 
be regarded, upon your principles, as Christian min- 
isters, and of none of whose members, however pious, 
as they are not under the superintendence of diocesan 
bishops, can there be the smallest hope that they shall 
be received, when they die, into the abodes of bless- 
edness. But while such are your views of the state 
of these Churches, there is another Church which you 
are disposed to consider as presenting a very noble 
and gratifying contrast to these schismatical Churches, 
namely, the Church of Rome. That Church, you 
allege, from which you received the succession, still 
retains it, and must therefore be a true and apostoli- 
cal Church. Nay, you talk of it in terms of the high- 
est veneration, as "your Mother Church," and are 

the Book of Discipline, to excommunicate the contumacious, and the 
Tractate of excommunication prefixed to some old Psalrne books, 
sheweth that they might do it without the advyce of the superinten- 
dent. They were subject to the censure of the ministers and elders of 
the province, who might depose them in some cases. Their maine 
work was preaching-, for they were to preach at the least thrice every 
week. They had their own particular flocks beside, with which they 
stayed always, save when they were visiting the bounds committed 
unto them. They might not try any minister thir alone, but were 
commanded to have the neerest reformed Church, and other learned 
men conjunct, by an act of the Fourth Nationall Assembly, an. 
1562. They might not transport a minister without the consent of 
the synod, as is clear by act fourth of the First Nationall Assembly, 
1562. They might not discusse any important question thir alone, 
as is clear by act first of the Ninth Nationall Synod, an. 1564. They 
were at liberty to appeal from them to the Nationall Synod, as is clear 
by act fifth, Assembly sixth. They were to be subject to the As- 
sembly, as is clear by the fourth Assembly, an. 1562. They never 
did moderate in General Assemblies, unless they had been chosen by 
vote. Beside, an. 1562, at the Nationall Assembly there were some 
ministers chosen to assist the five superintendents, (for no moe 
could be got settled for want of maintainance,) and had equally power 
with them, and were commanded to give accompt of their diligence 
unto every Nationall Synod, and there to lay down their office." 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 279 

anxious to induce your bishops and clergy to return 
within its pale. Such language, you are aware, 
would have excited the surprise of your early re- 
formers, who sealed with their blood their attachment 
to principles, to the importance of which you and 
your followers seem to be completely insensible, and 
who have left in their writings the most solemn warn- 
ings against that very step which you so strenuously 
recommend. "0 heinous blasphemy, and most de- 
testable injury against Christ," said Cranmer. " 
wicked abomination in the temple of God ! pride 
intolerable of Anti-Christ, and most manifest token of 
the Son of perdition, extolling himself above God, and 
with Lucifer, exalting his seat and power above the 
throne of God. What man of knowledge, and zeal 
to God's honour, can with dry eyes see this in- 
jury to Christ; and look upon the state of religion, 
brought in by the Papists, perceiving the true sense 
ol God's word subverted by false glosses of man's de- 
vising, the true Christian religion turned into certain 
hypocritical and superstitious acts, the people praying 
with their mouths and hearing with their ears they 
wist not what, and so ignorant in God's word, that 
they could not discern hypocrisy and superstition from 
true and sincere religion."* And again he says, "I 
know how Anti-Christ hath obscured the glory of 
God, and the true knowledge of his word ; and moved 
by the duty, office, and place whereunto it hath pleased 
God to call me, I give warning in his name, unto all 
that profess Christ, that they flee far from Babylon, 
if they will save their souls, and to beware of that 
great harlot, that is to say, the pestiferous See of 
Rome, that she make you not drunk with her plea- 
sant wine."t "The See of Rome," says Hooper, 
"is not only a tyranny and pestilence of body and 
soul, but the nest of all abomination. God give him 
grace, and all his successors, to leave their abomina- 
tion, and to come unto the light of God's word. This 

* See his Book on the Sacrament, Fathers of the English Church, 
vol. iii. p. 350. 

t Fathers of the English Church, p. 332. 



280 LETTERS ON 

beast is preached unto the people, to be a man that 
cannot err; his authority to be above God and his 
laws; and to be the prince upon earth of all princes. 
Bat God will judge him, as he is a murderer of both 
body and soul, and punish the princes of this world 
that uphold his abomination."* "When a man," 
says Latimer, "is a right Papist, given to monkery, I 
warrant you he is in this opinion, that with his own 
works he doth merit remission of sins, and satisfieth 
the law through and by his own works, and so think- 
eth himself to ' be saved everlastingly. This is the 
opinion of all Papists; and this doctrine was taught in 
times past, in schools, and in the pulpits. Now, all 
these that be in such an opinion, they be the enemies 
of the cross of Christ, of his passion and blood-shed- 
ding." "Yea," says he elsewhere, "what fellowship 
hath Christ with Anti-Christ? Therefore is it not 
lawful to bear the yoke with Papists "\ And says 
Jewel, "As for us we have forsaken a Church in 
which we could neither hear the pure word of God, 
nor administer the sacraments, nor invoke the name 
of God as we ought,"! and of which Gerson com- 
plains, that "the multitude of light and foolish cere- 
monies (in it) had extinguished all that power of the 
Holy Spirit which should have nourished in us, and 
all that was truly pious. "§ And he adds, "Where- 
fore, if the Pope does indeed desire we should be re- 
conciled to him, he ought first to reconcile himself 
to God;"|| which, though you are so desirous to join 
his communion, has never yet been done. But 
whether you respect or disregard these warnings, it is 
necessary to examine whether the apostolical succes- 
sion has been preserved in that Church; and if I suc- 
ceed in demonstrating that it has been utterly destroy- 
ed, it will follow upon your principles, as well as its 

* Fathers of the English Church, vol. v. p. 117. 
t Ibid. vol. ii. p. 659 ; vol. iv. p. 103. 
\ Ibid. vol. vii. p. 85. 

^Apology for the Church of England, Fathers of the English 
Church, vol. vii. p. 63. 
|] Ibid. p. 119. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 281 

own, that it has long ago ceased to be a Christian 
Church, and has not, since this happened, had a sin- 
gle bishop, or priest, or deacon who was a Christian 
minister, nor a single member who could have any 
hope of salvation. And if that event took place prior 
to the Reformation, it will furnish another unanswera- 
ble argument to show that that succession never even 
began in your National Church as a Protestant Church, 
or among the Scottish Episcopalians, or in the Church 
of Ireland. 

Now, I beg to remark, in support of my position, 
that it would certainly be wonderful if the succession 
had been preserved in the Church of Rome, when 
you consider its doctrine respecting baptism. It has 
acknowledged, at least for many centuries, the valid- 
ity of that ordinance when administered by Pagans, 
and has declared', that if it has been dispensed in the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, it cannot 
be repeated " without sacrilege." If baptism, how- 
ever, when performed by presbyters, because they 
were not ordained by diocesan bishops, though it has 
been done in that name, is not valid, you will scarcely, 
I apprehend, admit its validity when administered by 
heathens, who were themselves unbaptized, and who 
avowed their disbelief of the doctrines of the Gospel, 
and among others the Trinity, though they might pro- 
nounce the names of the persons in the Godhead. But 
if baptism by such persons was invalid, it renders it, 
I conceive, exceedingly probable that the succession 
must have been broken in that apostate Church, un- 
less you can prove, that for seven hundred years prior 
to the Reformation, there was not an individual in any 
of the numerous and extensive countries which ac- 
knowledged its authority, who, though baptized by 
Pagans, and never re-baptized, was raised to the epis- 
copate. 

It is not, however, merely matter of probability, but 
of absolute certainty, that the succession was destroyed 
for a number of centuries before the reformation, both 
in the Western and Eastern Churches; and in confir- 



282 LETTERS ON 

mation of this assertion, I would solicit your attention 
to the following facts : 

You will scarcely deny, that the orders of laymen, 
who were promoted at once to the office of bishops 
were invalid and uncanonical, and yet there were nu- 
merous instances in which the succession was broken 
by such gross irregularities in the Churches of Rome 
and Constantinople. Cyprian was only a neophyte, 
or newly baptized, when he was ordained at once to 
be bishop of Carthage ; Ambrose, when he was made 
bishop of Milan ; and Nectarius, when he was ap- 
pointed to the See of Constantinople. And Euche- 
rius was only a layman when he was made bishop 
of Lyons ; and Philogonius of Antioch was trans- 
ferred, according to Chrysostom, from a court of jus- 
tice to a bishop's throne.* Tarasius, though a layman, 
was consecrated to the see of Constantinople in 784, 
and made many bishops and presbyters; and Photius, 
who was in the same state, was made Patriarch in 
S54. John XIX., while a layman, was raised at once 
to the Popedom, in 1024, and ordained many both 
among the higher and lower orders of the clergy. 
Clement V., in 1308, gave the archbishopric of Mentz 
to Peter, a physician, who was only a layman, for 
attending him during his illness, remarking, that "it 
was fit the cure of souls should be committed to one 
who was so expert at curing the body." And Ama- 
deus, Duke of Savoy, though a layman, was made 
Pope in 1439, and consecrated a number of cardinals 
and bishops while he retained that office, though he 
resigned it in 1448. It would be easy to specify 
many more instances, but it is unnecessary. And I 
have only to ask, whether, believing, as you must, 
that episcopal orders conferred on those who had 
been baptized only by Pagans, or bestowed in oppo- 
sition to the 10th canon of the Council of Sardica, 
and the decisions of many others of the early coun- 
cils, on mere laymen, are invalid; and knowing that 

* Pontius in Vit. Cypri. Socrat., 1. v. c. 8 ; Sozom. 1. vii. c. 8 ; Hi- 
lary Arelat. in Vit. Honorat. Chrysostom, Homil. 31, de Philog. 
See Bovver's History of the Popes, vol. iv. p. 21. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 283 

these laymen ordained many bishops, priests and 
deacons, you are not prepared to admit that the apos- 
tolical succession has been lost irrecoverably both in 
the Western and Eastern Churches? And I have 
further to inquire, whether it does not follow from 
these facts, according to your principles and those of 
the Papists, that in neither of these Churches, any 
more than in your own, or in any other Church on 
the face of the earth, is there either at present, or has 
there been, at least for more than a thousand years, a 
single minister who was entitled to be considered as a 
Christian minister, nor a single individual who could 
have any hope of salvation ? 

The same thing seems to follow from another im- 
portant fact, which you cannot controvert, namely, 
that bishops have frequently been ordained to Sees 
which were held by others; and consequently the 
orders which were conferred on them, from the prin- 
ciples laid down in your own canons, and in those of 
the Scottish Episcopalians, and in the decisions of the 
early Christian councils, must have been null and 
void. It was declared by Cyprian, as was stated in 
a note, p. 262, that "there cannot be a second bishop 
after the first, and therefore whoever is made a 
bishop after the first is not a second bishop, but no 
bishop at all" And, on that account, the Council of 
Nice pronounced those whom Miletius had ordained 
in Egypt, to Sees that were not vacant, to be " no 
bishops." Now, we know that many bishops were 
ordained to Sees, both in the Western and Eastern 
Churches, which were held by others, just as Ham- 
ilton was ordained to the See of Galloway, of which 
Sydserf was bishop; and therefore their own ordina- 
tions, and the orders which they conferred upon others, 
whether bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and the bap- 
tisms administered by the latter, must have been in- 
valid. At the end, for instance, of the very century 
in which the first Council of Nice was held, Augus- 
tine was ordained Bishop of Hippo by the Primate 
of Numidia, and a number of bishops, while Vale- 
rius was living, and had not resigned his See ; and 



284 LETTERS ON 

he was never re-ordained, and consequently his own 
orders, and those which he gave, must have been null 
and void. Nor was it done, either by him or the 
prelates who ordained him, from a want of respect 
for the canons of that Council, but, as he himself ac- 
knowledges, from their being ignorant of them;* and 
though he named his successor, and caused him to be 
elected, he would not suffer him to be ordained while 
he himself was living.! Photius was divested of the 
priesthood nine years after his consecration to the See 
of Constantinople, because, as the Council of Metz 
expresses it, " in the lifetime of their brother Ignatius, 
Patriarch of that Church, he had intruded himself into 
it, and entered the sheepfold, not by the door, but like 
a thief and a robber ;" and yet, in the course of that 
time, he had made many bishops and presbyters. 
Pope Silverius, Bishop of Rome, was banished from 
his See by Belisarius, in 537, but not deposed, and 
Vigilius was chosen and ordained in his room. His 
orders, however, were invalid, as there was another 
bishop to whom the See belonged, and there could 
not be a second ; and as he was not re-ordained upon 
the death of Silverius, the eighty-one bishops and 
forty-six presbyters! whom he ordained during his 
pontificate have given a fatal blow to the apostolical 
succession in the Church of Rome, and in every Church 
which was connected with it. And as none of your 
ministers, or of the Scottish Episcopalians, is able to 
show that he has not derived his orders from some 
of these prelates, it is evident that, till he is prepared 
to do so, he can have no assurance that he is a Chris- 
tian minister. And Eugenius was made Pope and 
Bishop of Rome in 654, when, as appears from a 
letter of Martin, his predecessor, the latter had not 
resigned, so that his ordinations also must have been 
equally invalid. § The Anti-Pope Guibert was made 
Bishop of Rome in 1080, while Gregory VII. held 
that See; and he claimed that bishopric for twenty 

* August. Ep. 110, et 64. Possid. in Vit. Aug. c. 8. 
t Epist. 110. 

t Bower's History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 374. 
§ Ibid. vol. iii. p. 68, 69. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACr. 285 

years during the pontificate of Gregory, Victory III. 
and Urban II., and all the orders which he gave must 
have been a nullity. From 1159 to 1182 there were 
in succession four Anti-Popes ; and though the ordi- 
nations which they made were declared by Alexander 
III. to be invalid, yet the persons who received them 
do not appear to have been re-ordained upon their 
submitting to his authority ; nor were the individuals 
whom they baptized rebaptized. And for thirty 
years more, or from 1378 till 1409, there were two 
Popes, one residing at Rome, and the other at Avig- 
non, of whom it was remarked by Bower, "that it has 
never yet been decided which was the true Pope." 
Both the rival Popes were deposed in 1409, and Alex- 
ander V. appointed Pope, who confirmed the ordi- 
nations made by the two competitors, provided they 
were in other respects canonical* But it is plain, 
that his decision could not make the orders of those 
who received them valid without reordination ; and 
as this never took place, the injury which was done 
to the apostolical succession in the Church of Rome 
during that long period, by so many irregular and 
uncanonical ordinations, must evidently be incalcu- 
lable, and demonstrates that that Church which you 
so much admire cannot, upon your principles, be a 
Christian Church, nor its ministers Christian ministers, 
and that not even one of its members can have any 
hope of salvation.! 

I remain, Reverend Sir, yours, &c. 

* Bower's History of the Popes, vol. vii. p. 125. 

t It deserves to be noticed, that Formosus, who had been degraded 
from his bishopric, and reduced to the condition of a layman by John 
VIII., upon his elevation to the Popedom, ordained Plegmund to be 
Archbishop of Canterbury, who, as Professor Killen observes, from 
Innet, (Plea for Presbytery, p. 50,) ordained no less than seven 
bishops in one day, and held the See for twenty-six years. For- 
mosus, however, was deposed after his death, first by Stephen VII., 
and then by Sergius, who " deposed likewise all such as had been 
consecrated and invested by him." The latter act was never re- 
voked by him, and as Plegmund was never reordained, it presents 
an alarming view of the state of the orders of the English clergy, 
according to Dr. Pusey's principles, and of the Scottish Episcopalians, 
whose bishops, both in 1G10 and 1GG1, received their orders from the 
English bishops. 



2S6 



LETTER XVIII. 

Additional evidence that the succession has been lost in the Church of Rome. 
— Boys ordained to be Bishops, and striplings made Popes. — Atheists and 
avowed infidels raised to the Popedom. — I'apal canon, that "if a Pope 
should carry with turn innumerable souls to hell, no man must presume to 
find fault with him." Simoniacal ordinations declared void by the canons 
of many Councils, and yet for eight hundred years there were many such 
Ordinations, both in the Western and Kastern Churches. — Idiots, and per- 
sons, " who, when they read, prayed, or sang, knew not whether they 
hlessed God or blasphemed him," ordained to be bishops. — Multitudes of 
the most immoral individuals, some of whom "drank wine in honour of 
the devil," made Popes and Bishops. 

Reverend Sir, — I appeal further, in support of my 
position, to the ordination of individuals to the highest 
and most important functions in the Church, when 
they were far from an age which could prepare them 
for being admitted even into the lowest of its orders. 
John the Tenth, for instance, confirmed the election 
of Hugh, son of Count Hubert, in 925, to the Arch- 
bishopric of Rheims, though he was scarcely five 
years old; and he was consecrated in a council of 
bishops at Soissons, when he was only eighteen years 
of age.* John the Twelfth, though destitute of every 
quality which could fit him for being received even as 
a member of the Church, was made Bishop of Rome, 
and Head of the Universal Church, in 956, when he 
was only eighteen, and retained the Popedom till 963, 
when he was deposed.! And among other charges 
brought against him before the Council, and which 
were not contradicted, "John, Bishop of Narni, and 
John Cardinal Deacon, attested, that they had seen 
him ordain a deacon in a stable; and Benedict, dea- 
con, with other deacons and priests, said, that they 
knew for certain that he had ordained bishops for 
money, and had, among the rest, ordained a child but 
ten years old Bishop of Todi.":J: Nor were these 

* Bower, vol. v. p. 94-100. 

t Ibid. vol. v. p. 104. 

t Ibid. vol. v. p. 108. Bower was Professor of Rhetoric, History 
and Philosophy in the Universities of Rome, Firmo, and Macerata; 
and in the latter place, Counsellor to the Inquisition. 






PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 287 

solitary instances, for Ratherius, Bishop of Verona in 
Italy, during the tenth century, is said by Dr. Allix, 
in his Remarks on the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, 
(p. 241,) to have written to the Bishop of Parma, "to 
desire him to confer orders upon children for money 
no more, as he was wont to do;" and there were 
many similar ordinations during successive centuries. 
But if such be the case, I should like to be informed, 
whether you really believe that the apostolic succes- 
sion has been preserved in that Church, by orders 
conferred on boys and striplings, whom none of your 
bishops would venture to ordain, and whether you, 
Mr. Newman, Dr. Hook, or Mr. Perceval are able to 
prove that your own orders have not come to you 
from the Bishop of Todi, or the Archbishop of Rheims, 
or some other prelate who was ordained in his boy- 
hood, so as to justify your claims to the honourable 
character of Christian ministers. 

And then, when, along with the consecration of 
boys and of men who had never been baptized at all, 
or baptized by Pagans, to the office of bishops, you 
consider the doctrine which was taught in that Church 
for many ages, it will certainly be strange if you ven- 
ture to assert that it has preserved the succession. 
"The Church," said Melancthon, whom your most 
distinguished prelates were accustomed to venerate, 
" is not bound to the ordinary succession of bishops, 
but to the Gospel. When bishops do not teach right 
doctrine they must be left, for the ordinary succession 
is of no avail to the Church."* "Of the right use of 
sacraments," says Bishop Hooper, "it is taught, 1 Cor. 
xi., Mark xvi., Luke xxiv. and Matt, xxviii., which 
teach people to know the Church by these signs. The 
traditions of men, and the succession of bishops teach 
wrong. Those two false opinions have given unto 
the succession of bishops power to interpret the Scrip- 
ture, and power to make such laws in the Church as 

*"Dixi supra ecclesiam non esse alligatam ad successionem ordi- 
nariam, ut vacant, episcoporum, sed ad evangelium. Dum episcopi 
non recto doccnt, nihil ad ecclesiam pertinet ordinaria successio, sed 
necessario relinquendi sunt;" torn. i. fbL 231, Opcrum. 



2S8 LETTERS ON 

it pleased them. God, for the preservation of his 
Church, doth give unto certain persons the gift and 
knowledge to open the Scripture: but that gift is not 
a power bound to any order, or succession of bishops, 
or title of dignity."* And said Bilson, "The succes- 
sion is of no weight, unless truth of doctrine and pu- 
rity of life be added to it."t I shall immediately 
inquire whether the bishops and dignitaries of the 
Romish Church were distinguished by that purity, and 
I beg to inquire at you and all your followers, as 
honest, consistent and intelligent members of the 
Church of England, whether you think that the doc- 
trine of the Church of Rome, and of many of its 
bishops, not merely on lesser, but on the most momen- 
tous points, was agreeable to the doctrine of the Sa- 
cred Scriptures ? Jewel, in his Apology for the Church 
of England, points out many monstrous and fatal er- 
rors in the Church of Rome; and as it is one of the 
public books of your Church, as long as you remain 
in it, you must concur in his statements. And I should 
like to know whether you believe that any one who 
held these heresies could preserve the succession. We 
know, too, that infidels and atheists have been ele- 
vated to the highest place in that Church, and I would 
be glad if you will show how they could maintain the 
succession, by laying their hands on the heads of 
others, any more than Satan, if he were to appear 
upon earth in a human form, could do it by the im- 
position of his hands. " We remember," says the 
noble Picus of Mirandula, "another ordained and re- 
ceived for true Pope, who, in the opinion of good men, 
neither was nor could be true Pope, as he believed no 
God, and exceeded the utmost pitch of infidelity. It 
is affirmed, he confessed to some of his domestics that 
he believed no God even when he sat in the Papal 
chair. And I have heard of another Pope, who own- 

* Declaration of Christ and his Office, Fathers of the English 
Church, vol. v. p. 177. I quote now from this edition, as I have not 
retained the copy from which I made the other extracts, 

t "Successio nullius pondcris est nisi addatur doctrinae Veritas et 
pura vitae conversatio." Parker de Politeia Ecclesiast. p. 163. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 289 

ed to one of his intimates that he did not believe the 
immortality of the soul."* And yet it is from men 
like these that you and your followers derive that dio- 
cesan apostolical succession in which you so much 
glory. And we are informed by Jewel, in his Apo- 
logy for your Church, that "Pope Liberius was an 
Arian," and undeified his Saviour; that "Pope John 
thought very lewdly and wickedly of the immortality 
of the soul, and of the life to come ; and that, as Ly- 
ranus saith, many Popes have renounced the Chris- 
tian faith and become Apostates"^ The following, 
too, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting 
the power of the Popes. "We," says Innocent III., 
"according to the plenitude of our power, have a right 
to dispense with all right;"! upon which Bellarmine 
remarks, that "should the Pope enjoin vice, and for- 
bid virtue, the Church would sin, if she did not believe 
virtue to be evil, and vice to be good."§ " Nor was 
this at all wonderful," says Bower, "for Cardinal Za- 
barel, who flourished near four hundred years ago, 
writes, that in his and in the preceding times, the 
Popes had been persuaded by their flattering divines 
that they might do whatever they pleased, even such 
things as were in themselves, and with respect to 
others, unlawful ; and so could do more than God 
himself. "\ And says one of the Papal canons, 
" Should a Pope be so wicked as to carry with him 
innumerable souls to hell, let no man presume to find 
fault with him, or reprove him, because he who is to 
judge all men is judged of none. "IF Nay, such was 
the blasphemy practised in that Church, in which the 
Papists, according to Jewel, "had left almost nothing 

* Theor. IV. 

t Apology, p. 91, 92, vol. vii. of the Fathers of the English Church. 

X Inn. III. Decret. Greg. lib. iii. tit, 8, c. 4. 

§ Bellarm. de Pontine. Rom. lib. iv. cap. 5. 

|| Zabar. de Schism. 

H " Si Papas suae, &c. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. " Dost thou not 
know," said Paul the Second to the auditors of the Rota, "that all 
laws are lodged in our breast. Sentence is given, and all shall obey 
it. lam Pope, anil have a power to approve or condemn at my pleasure 
the actions of all other men." Platina et Summont. torn. iii. p. 474. 
19 



290 LETTERS ON 

like a Church," that as he elsewhere remarks, "they 
impudently solicited the Virgin Mary, that she would 
remember she was a mother ; that she would be 
pleased to command her son, and that she would make 
use of the authority she had over him."* But if such 
was the doctrine respecting the power of the Popes 
which was taught at one time in the Church of Rome, 
from which you have derived the succession, (and it 
has never been recalled, as might naturally have been 
expected, till the present day, for she claims the attri- 
butes of infallibility and immutability,) and if such 
was the blasphemy which she openly tolerated, I ask 
you whether the imposition of the hands of men, who 
avowed these sentiments, claimed these powers, and 
connived at these heaven-daring and revolting sins, 
could preserve the succession ? 

Nor is my position less clearly and conclusively 
established by the numerous instances of the most dis- 
graceful simony which prevailed both in the Western 
and Eastern Churches. " It has been generally allow- 
ed," says Dr. Forbes, ih that the lawful succession of 
true pastors is interrupted and broken by simony, and 
that every ecclesiastical person who is simoniacally 
promoted is irregular, and of right alien from the priest- 
hood, suspended and deprived of his office, and lies 
under an anathema."! " If any bishop, presbyter, or 
deacon," says the 30th Apostolic Canon, " obtains a 
dignity by money, let him be deposed; and let him 
who ordained him be cut off from the communion of 
the Church, as Simon Magus was by St. Peter." " He 
who is ordained according to this evil custom," says 
the Second Council of Nice, (canon 5,) " is alien from 
God, and excluded wholly from the priesthood." 
"Neither they who buy, nor they who sell holy 
orders," says Gregory, " can be priests, because ana- 
thema is denounced both against him that gives, and 
him that receives them." And it is declared by Gela- 
sius, that " the damnation of Simon involves both the 

* Apology, p. 56 and 30. 

t Instructiones Historico-Theologicae, lib. xvi. cap. 6, sec. 6, p. 

781. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 291 

receiver and the giver."* The same, also, was the 
doctrine of the Sixth Council of Constantinople, which 
decrees, (canons 22, 23,) that "if a bishop or any- 
other of the clergy be ordained for money, both he that 
ordained him, and he that is ordained, shall be de- 
posed; for grace," say they, "cannot be sold, nor do 
we bestow the sanctiflcation of the Spirit for money." 
And if the orders of him who is ordained to be a 
bishop for money, by the canons both of the Eastern 
and Western Churches, be void,t it follows on the 
same principle, that if he should contrive to retain his 
bishopric, all the orders which he confers afterwards 
on others, whether bishops, presbyters, or deacons, 
must also be void, and the apostolical succession must 
be broken. 

And yet how stands the fact in regard to the ordi- 
nations in both these Churches, as far as relates to 
simony? In the year 531, on the death of Boniface II., 
says Bower, "many aspired to the vacant dignity, spa- 
ring neither pains nor money to attain it. For in spite 
of many laws, both ecclesiastic and civil, simony still 
reigned without mask or disguise. Votes were pub- 
licly bought and sold, and money was offered to the 
senators themselves." if Baronius says of Vigilius, 
when he was Anti-Pope, that "he was not only a se- 
cond Lucifer, striving to ascend into heaven, and exalt 
his throne above the stars, but, by the weight of his 
enormous sacrileges and heinous crimes, brought down 
to hell, a schismatic, a simoniac, a murderer, not the 
successor of Simon Peter, but of Simon Magus, not 
the vicar of Christ, but an Anti-Christ, an idol set up 
in the temple of God, a wolf, a thief, and a robber ;§ 
though, when he was elevated to the Popedom, upon 

* See, too, what is collected by Gratian, canon 1, quaest. 1, as 
abridged by Francowitz, in his Catalogus Testium, p. 1469. 

t The Council of Orleans, in 536, declares, that " if any person, by 
an execrable ambition, seeks to obtain the priesthood by money, he is 
to be rejected as a reprobate." A similar decision was pronounced 
by the Council of Bracara de Braga, in 572; and there is no point in 
regard to which the Councils of both Churches are more united and 
determined. 

X Bower, vol. ii. p. 332. § Baronius, ad an. 538. 



292 LETTERS ON 

the death of Silverius,he makes him a good Catholic. 
In the end of the sixth century, Gregory the Great 
wrote a great many letters to the bishops, to the kings 
and princes, and to all men in power, earnestly en- 
treating them to "assemble councils, and jointly to 
eoncert such measures as might put an effectual stop 
to (simony) an evil that reflected so much disgrace on 
the ecclesiastical order, and on the holy religion which 
they taught or professed."* " In the time of this 
Pope," says Francowitz of the monster Sergius, who 
lived in the ninth century, "and of his brother, (Ben- 
edict,) bishoprics were disposed of by public sale ;" 
and in the tenth century, " no one was provided for 
or created a bishop unless he paid for it, or bound 
himself to do so under the most tremendous penal- 
ties."! The same practice continued in the eleventh 
century, for he says that "they sold bishoprics and 
other ecclesiastical offices;" and adds, on the autho- 
rity of Aveutinus, that "most of the bishops and 
abbots in Germany had fallen from their dignity 
through simony, and that three of the Popes, Bene- 
dict IX., Silvester III. and Gregory VI. had procured 
the Popedom by money."! And so generally did it 
prevail throughout the whole Romish Church, that 
when Leo IX. proposed in a council, which was held 
at Rome in 1049, that all simoniacal ordinations 
should be declared null, the majority of the bishops 
opposed him; for they said, that if such a decree 
should pass, "scarce any would be found in some 
dioceses capable of performing the sacerdotal or 
episcopal functions."^ I have heard, said John, 
Bishop of Salisbury, in 1159, to Hadrian IV., when 
he urged him to tell him his mind, that "all things 

* Bower, vol ii p. 480. 
" f L'atalogus Testium, 1097 and 1206. See also what is said of 
John XIII. p. 1277. 

I Catalojrus Testium, 1355, 1356, and 1358. He tells us, p. 1257, 
that Peter Damianus complained grievously of the simony of his time, 
and wrote a book against it. 

§ Bower, vol. v. p. 167. He states further, that in 1074, most of the 
German Bishops " had purchased their bishoprics from the emperor 
or his ministers." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 293 

are venal at Rome ; that for money you may obtain 
to-day what you please, but the next "day you will get 
nothing without it. The Roman Pontiff himself "is, 
they say, a burden to all almost insupportable."* 
And St. Bernard, on the 19th Psalm, observes, that 
"the offices of ecclesiastical dignity were turned into 
filthy lucre, and a work of darkness j" and Hugo 
Flaviacensis, " that all the clergy rather sought their 
own things than the things of Jesus Christ, and chose 
rather to adhere to the discipleship of Simon, than to 
the poverty of Christ. "t It was no less prevalent in 
the thirteenth century, for it is asserted by Matthew 
Paris, that "it was committed at that time" in the 
Church of England, " without shame ;" and it is 
pointed out by Durandus, as one of the most impor- 
tant steps towards the reformation of the Church, that 
simony should be repressed, which, says he, "reigns 
at Rome as if it were no sin. "J In accordance with 
which it is mentioned by Wickliff, that, " in the year 
1226, a Legate of the Pope, whom he had sent into 
England, produced a bull to the Parliament, in which 
it is distinctly admitted, that nothing could be done at 
Rome without the greatest profusion of money, and 
the most ample gifts ; and that therefore the Church 
of Rome, the mother of all other Churches, was infa- 
mous for its avarice, simony and corruption. "§ Al- 
varus Pelagius, when speaking of the Popes in the 
fourteenth century, laments that " many of them came 
into their Sees by simony ; of the bishops, that they 
conferred orders for rewards, and were simoniacal, 
especially in Spain, where not one of a hundred con- 
ferred orders or benefices without simony ; of the 
presbyters, that they were commonly promoted by 
simony ; and of the Church in general, that her pre- 

* Bower, vol. vi. p. 109. 

t Chron. Verdun, p. 207 ; Concil. torn. x. p. 375. 

X Catalogus Testium, p. 1621. 

§ See his work de Papae Potestate, as cited by Francowitz, p. 1773. 
The Legate proposed, that to prevent this evil, a certain proportion of 
the funds of the monasteries and cathedral churches should be given 
to the Pope, which was refused. 



294 LETTERS ON 

lates did nothing now but by gifts and rewards."* 
And while it is mentioned by Sigismund, that " not a 
single prelate" in the fifteenth century, " from Nich- 
olas the Third," i. e. for three hundred years before, 
"had been free from simony;" by Alanus Chartier, 
secretary to King Charles the Seventh, that "he 
would be silent respecting the simony, and illicit con- 
tracts, of the bishops, because he was afraid that by 
the very recitation of them the heaven itself would 
be darkened ;" and by Hermannus Ried, that " from 
the greatness of their luxury, their other vices, such 
as avarice, simony and perfidy, were not considered 
as sins ;"t it is impossible to read the following ac- 
count of the conduct of the bishops, delivered by 
Clemangis, without feelings of the deepest humili- 
ation and regret that such things should have been 
practised in the Christian Church. " There be very 
many things," says he, "in our bishops worthy of re- 
prehension, but this least of all to be endured, that 
for imposition of hands, collation of orders, sacred 
and inferior, they do not only receive, but exact and 
extort money, setting a price upon all orders, which 
if it be not paid, they will admit no person into 
orders, though he be never so well qualified, by his 
manners, life and learning. The Church is now be- 
come a shop of merchandise, or rather of robbery 
and rapine, in which all the sacraments are exposed 
to sale. Would a man have a bishopric? He must 
provide his money. Does he desire a prebend, or 
any other dignity ? It is no matter what his life, 
merit, or conversation be, but the great question is, 
Avhat money he may have to buy it."± It would be 
easy to produce numerous instances of similar simony, 
though not to the same extent, in the Eastern Church, 
where John Talaia was expelled for that crime from 
the See of Alexandria, in 4S2, and had many who 
followed his disgraceful example, but I am unwilling 

* Second Book de Planctu Ecclesiae. 

t Catalogus Testium, p. 1877, 1854, 1853. Examine also what is 
said by the Bishop of Ci vita, as it is quoted by Ried, p. 1839. 
t See his book on Simoniacal Prelates. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 295 

to prolong these disgusting details. If it was de- 
clared then of old, that those who were guilty of the 
sin of simony had no part or lot in the power of com- 
municating the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
by the laying on of hands, and if it follows, as has 
been determined by the Councils of the Church in 
every age, that they have no part or lot in receiving 
the office of the holy ministry, or in conferring it on 
others, it is plain, that in all cases where individuals 
were raised to the office of the episcopate by such 
simoniacal pactions, their orders were void, and con- 
sequently the orders which they conferred upon 
others. And as the instances in which this was done 
for eight hundred years, not only in the Eastern, but 
the Western Churches, are said not merely by Pro- 
testants, but by ministers and members of the Church 
of Rome, whose testimony has been produced, to have 
been incredibly numerous, it is evident that the suc- 
cession must have been completely broken in both 
these Churches, and those Episcopalian Churches 
which were connected with them; and consequently, 
that, upon your principles, they must long ago have 
ceased to be Christian Churches, and none of their 
members can have the smallest hope of being per- 
mitted to share in the blessings of salvation. 

I have only further to remark, that many who were 
ordained to the office of bishops were so grossly igno- 
rant, and so notoriously immoral, that it is utterly 
incomprehensible how they could preserve the suc- 
cession. 

A bishop, you know, is required to be " apt to 
teach," before he receive his commission; and if he is 
destitute of this gift notoriously and undeniably to an 
extreme degree, or if he happen to be an idiot before 
he is invested with his office, the commission will not 
avail him, and he cannot give it to others. For as Dr. 
Whitby observes, in the Appendix to his Sermon on 
Matthew xii. 7, "it seemeth as absurd to say to an 
idiot, who lies under a moral incapacity to teach, 
* Take thou authority to teach the Gospel/ as to say 
this to a deaf and dumb man, who lies under a natu- 



296 LETTERS ON 

ral incapacity to do it, seeing a moral incapacity, 
whilst it lasts, renders a man as incapable of teaching, 
as a natural incapacity." Now, the following are the 
statements of eminent Roman Catholics, respecting 
the aptness of many who were raised to the episcopate, 
and who ordained others to teach and preach: 

Petrus Blessensis,in the thirteenth century, exclaims 
thus in his 23d Epistle, " How did this execrable pre- 
sumption prevail, that unworthy persons should thus 
grasp at dignity, and the less they deserved such 
honours, the more earnestly should thrust themselves 
into them? For now," says, he, ''unhappy men do 
thrust themselves into the pastoral chair by right or 
wrong. He that hath learned nothing becomes a 
teacher of others; and though he belike the sounding 
brass, and tinkling cymbal, usurps the office of a 
teacher, being an unprofitable trunk and dumb idol." 

In the fourteenth century, Marsilius of Padua men- 
tions that "the Pope, in the plenitude of his power 
rejects and nulls the election of sufficient and approved 
men to almost all ecclesiastical dignities, though 
rightly made ; and in their stead appoints men igno- 
rant of the Holy Scriptures, idiots, unlearned persons, 
and for the most part men of corrupt minds, and noto- 
riously wicked. Our modern bishops, (which it is a 
shame to say,) neither know how to preach the word 
of God to the people, nor to resist the doctrine of the 
heretics. And as for the rest of the inferior prelates, 
abbots, priors, and other curates of the Church, I call 
God to witness, that the numerous multitude of them 
are both void of sufficient learning and life, so that the 
most of them know not how to speak congruously, 
according to the rules of grammar; but yet, out of the 
fulness of the Pope's power, the greatest dignities are 
given to such as these." And he says, respecting the 
cardinals, that " lascivious young men, and ignorant 
of the Holy Scriptures, are many of them promoted to 
that dignity."* 

Alvarus Pelagius complains of the bishops that 

* Defensor Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 14, p. 354. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 297 

"they conferred benefices on unworthy persons. 
This," says he, " is so common in our times, that they 
ordained men whom- they knew to be unlearned and 
unfit, (cap. 3.) — that being idiots they suffered them- 
selves to be made bishops; and (cap. 4,) that they 
promiscuously ordained good and bad." 

Nicolaus de Clemangis, in the fifteenth century, in 
his treatise on Simoniacal Prelates, to which I have 
already referred, says, "therefore you may see such 
men admitted to the priesthood, and other holy offices, 
who are idiots, unlearned, and scarce able to read, 
though luaywardly, and ivithout understanding one 
syllable after another, who know no more of Latin 
than they do of Arabic, and who, when they read, 
pray, or sing, know not zvhether they bless God, or 
blaspheme him; men undisciplined, unquiet, gluttons, 
drunkards, praters, vagabonds, lustful, bred up in 
luxury, and, in one word, idle and ignorant;" (chap. 
1.) And in his book on the corrupt state of the 
Church, he says that the Pope had stocked the Church 
with ignorant and wicked men. " Good God," he 
cries out, " how great a number of expectants from 
that time, (when he had taken away from the bishops 
and patrons the power of presenting to benefices,) 
came in, not from their studies, and the schools, but 
from the plough and servile arts, to become parish 
priests, and to obtain other benefices, who knew no 
more of the Latin than of the Arabic tongue, who 
could not read, and (which it is a shame to speak of) 
scarce knew A from B, and yet their immorality was 
greater than their ignorance." And he adds, that 
" through the avarice, simony and other vices of the 
cardinals, it came to pass that no man learned in the 
Scriptures, no honest, just and virtuous persons were 
advanced to high dignities; but buffoons only, flat- 
terers, ambitious persons, and men corrupted with all 
vices, tiiat they cither wholly were unlearned, or they 
knew nothing of God's law; that being youths with- 
out beards, and scarce got from under the ferula, they 
obtai)ied a bishopric, knowing as little of that office 
as of the mariner's vocation. What should I speak," 



298 LETTERS ON 

says he, "of the learning of the priests, when it is visible 
that scarce any of them can read? They know not 
words, and much less things. He of them that prayeth 
is a barbarian to himself. If any man is idle and 
abhors labour, if he loves luxury, he gets now-a-days 
into the clergy." And Gerson complains " that bishops 
of good life and doctrine were not chosen any where, 
but carnal men, and ignorant of spiritual things." 

But the most revolting feature in the character of a 
great majority of the bishops, through a succession of 
centuries, was not merely their hypocrisy, like that of 
Judas, which was known only to himself and his 
blessed Master, for his doctrine was good and his 
outward demeanour comparatively decent, but their 
open ungodliness and monstrous immorality. And 
certainly, if a bishop is required to be blameless in 
the eyes of men before he receives his commission, 
can we really suppose that the following individuals, 
who had the sole power of ordaining presbyters, after 
they were raised to the episcopate, and the principal 
power in ordaining prelates, if they were raised to the 
Popedom, had valid orders, or could preserve the suc- 
cession by the imposition of their impious and polluted 
hands ? 

So depraved was the state of the Church of Rome 
in the year 500, that the following is the description 
which is given of it by Salvianus, both as to its clergy 
and laity : " We who are good Catholics, love un- 
cleanliness; they who are heretics, (the Arian Goths,) 
abhor and detest it; we hate purity, and avoid it; 
they admire and embrace it."* And so fearful was 
the declension of religion in the East, that in the year 
517, Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch, caused three 
hundred and fifty monks, who were opposed to the 
Eutychian doctrines, to be massacred by a band of 
ruffians whom he had hired for the purpose, and was 
never called to an account for it, but was permitted 
to lay his blood-stained hands on the heads of bishops 
and presbyters.t In 531, Boniface the Second ac- 

* Bower, vol. ii. p. 259. t Bower, vol. ii. p. 290. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 299 

knowledged, before a great Council of Bishops, and 
the whole Roman Senate, that he had been guilty of 
high treason, and notwithstanding, he had been con- 
tinning to confer orders.* And during all that cen- 
tury a number of bishops were chargeable with the 
greatest enormities. 

It has been alleged, I am aware, that there was a 
female Pope of the most dissolute character in the 
ninth century, who succeeded Leo the Fourth ; and it 
is affirmed by Fox, in his Book of Martyrs, that, 
"for five hundred years after her time, it was acknow- 
ledged as an historical fact of as great notoriety as 
any other connected with the papal chair."t I am 
unwilling, however, to found on it, as it does not ap- 
pear to be supported by sufficient evidence, the ear- 
liest writers who relate it having lived two hundred 
years after the time when it is said to have happened; 
while Anastasius, who seems to have been in Rome 
at the death of Leo, and to have been present at the 
election of his successor, says, that Benedict the Third 
was chosen in his room, and was brought immediately 
from the Church of St. Callistus, where they found 
him at his prayers. Besides, Hincmar, Archbishop 
of Rheims, informs us in his letters, that some mes- 
sengers whom he had dispatched to Leo, to procure 
a grant from him, found that he was dead, but ob- 
tained it. from Benedict. If there was a female Pope, 
however, and if she reigned, as is reported, for two 
years and five months, Hincmar's messengers must 
have spent all that time in their journey, which is in- 
credible, as they were never prevented from travelling 
by any obstacle. And the existence of such a Pope 
was never once referred to by the Patriarchs of the 
Eastern Church, in all their attempts to resist the 
claims of superintendence over them by the subse- 
quent Popes, as would certainly have been the case 
if Pope Joan had been a real character. But while 
there is no solid foundation for that degrading charge 

* Bower, vol. ii. p. 329. 

t From what Jewel says in his Apology, p. 43, it would seem that 
he also believed it. 



300 LETTERS ON 

against the See of Rome, it is liable to others nearly 
as odious, which rest upon evidence that cannot be 
controverted, and which demonstrate that the boasted 
apostolic succession has utterly failed. "This," says 
Cardinal Baronius, when speaking of the tenth cen- 
tury, "was an iron age, barren of all goodness, a 
leaden age, abounding with all wickedness, and a 
dark age, remarkable above all the rest for the scar- 
city of writers and men of learning." After which 
he adds, " The abomination of desolation was seen in 
the temple of the Lord; and in the See of St. Peter, 
revered by the angels, were placed the most wicked 
of men, not Pontiffs, but monsters. And how 
hideous was the face of the Roman Church, when 
filthy and impudent strumpets governed all at Rome, 
changed Sees at their pleasure, disposed of bishoprics, 
and intruded their gallants and their bullies into the 
See of St. Peter, who were written in the catalogues 
of Roman Pontiffs only to mark time. For who 
could assert that, those intruded by strumpets of this 
kind, without law, ivere legitimate Roman Pontiffs? 
No mention was then made of the clergy electing or 
consenting. The Church was then without a Pope, 
but not without a head, its spiritual head (Christ) 
never abandoning it."* And he might justly say so, 
for in the year 904 Sergius was raised to the Pope- 
dom, " who was the slave of every vice, and the most 
wicked of men ;"t and who, as Luitprand relates, 
had John, who was afterwards Roman Pontiff, and 
the twelfth of that name, by Marozia, the wife of 
Guido, a gay and most impudent courtezan, — and 
during the life both of the father and son, (both of 
whom ordained bishops and presbyters,) the whole 
Western Church and the city of Rome was governed 
by this strumpet.";}: And the same, he informs us, 
was the power of Theodora, "who obtained the 
chair of St. Peter to John of Ravenna, with whom 
she had had a criminal intrigue ;"§ and during the 
time of his primacy, she was the dispenser of the 

* Baron, ad ann. 900. t Ibid, ad an. 908. 

X Luitp. lib. ii. cap. 13. § Ibid. lib. ii. c. 13. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 301 

dignities and benefices of the Church. In 963, John 
the Twelfth, to whom I have referred formerly, was 
condemned by a Roman Council for carrying on scan- 
dalous intrigues with four different females, turning 
the holy palace into a brothel, putting out the eyes 
of Benedict, his ghostly father, who died of anguish, 
setting several houses on fire, drinking wine in honor 
of the devil, and when playing at dice, invoking Ju- 
piter, Venus, and the other pagan deities, and all the 
time he had been conferring orders. In the following 
century, Gregory the Seventh, denominated Hilde- 
brand, raised himself to the Popedom, having poi- 
soned, it is stated, no less than six of the Pontiffs 
that he might enjoy that honour; and during the 
whole of his supremacy, ignorance and wickedness 
overspread the Church. From the beginning, how- 
ever, of the twelfth century, her situation, if possible, 
became still more alarming. " Your court" says 
St. Bernard to the Pope, " receives good men some- 
times, but it makes none good: evil men thrive 
there, good men are ruined." And elsewhere he 
says, " Those bishops to whom the Church of God is 
now committed are not teachers, but seducers ; not 
pastors, but impostors; not prelates, but Pilates."* 
And yet these impostors and Pilates were the men 
who ordained other bishops. 

In the thirteenth century the clergy are described 
by the Bishop of Lincoln, in a sermon which he 
preached even before the Pope himself, as not only 
u destroying the vineyard of the Lord, and scattering 
pollution over every land," but as most luxurious, 
" fornicators above all others, adulterous, incestuous, 
epicures, and wallowing in every species of iniquity."! 
It is asserted also by Rubens, that "they were not 
only drunk in taverns, but kept them openly, as well 
as concubines, or tavern women;" J and his assertion 
is confirmed by Frederick of Spain and John of Sicily, 

* Jewel's Apology, p. 43, 64. 

t €!atalogus Teat. p. 1592, 1593. He was excommunicated for his 
sermon. 

X Catalogus Testium, 1249, 1254. 



302 LETTERS ON 

in a paper which has been preserved by Arnoldi de 
Villa Nova, and it is accompanied by the statement of 
some additional circumstances so exceedingly gross, 
that it is impossible to translate them.* " You have 
taken," said the Pope in 1274, to Henry, Bishop of 
Liege " an abbess of the order of St. Benedict for your 
concubine, and have boasted at a public entertain- 
ment of your having had fourteen children in the 
space of two and twenty months. To some of your 
children you have given benefices, &ndeve?i entrusted 
them, though under age, with the cure of souls. The 
abbess of a monastery in your diocese dying, you 
annulled the canonical election of another, and named 
in her room the daughter of a count, whose son has 
married one of your daughters, and it is said that the 
new abbess has been brought to bed of a child by 
you."t And while we are told by Alvarus Pelagius, 
that in the fourteenth century "idiots were made 
bishops;" and by Maenard, Count of the Tyrol, that 
" the prelates were worse than Turks, Saracens, Tar- 
tars or Jews," \ a picture is presented by WicklifTof 
the manners of the clergy, which it is impossible to 
contemplate without loathing and disgust. ik So great," 
says he, in his Treatise on Hypocrisy, " is the corrup- 
tion of manners in this age, and such its licentiousness, 
that the priests and monks, besides violating the chas- 
tity of married women, murdered virgins when they 
were unwilling to comply with their solicitations. 
Their sodomy, moreover, was unbounded; and they 
boasted to those whom they seduced that they were 
able to pardon them, and would answer for their 
sins."§ And towards the end of that century, Urban 
the Sixth, who ordained a number of bishops, besides 
his other shocking crimes, caused five of his cardinals 
to be " shut up in sacks, and thrown into the sea, or 

* Catalogus Testium, p. 1659, compared with p. 1735. 

t Bower, vol. vi. p. 295. 

X Defensor Pacis, p. 364. Pelagius de Planctu Ecclesiae, lib. ii. 
cap. 3; Catal. Test. p. 1810. It is mentioned that " there were few 
prelates who were not fornicators, and that they sat in public with 
their concubines, and sons and daughters." 

§ Catal. Test. p. 1814, 1815. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 303 

strangled in prison, or beheaded and their bodies to 
be privately conveyed to his stables, and consumed 
with quick-lime;" besides whom, it is mentioned by 
Boxinsegni, the Florentine historian, who wrote soon 
afterwards, that five eminent prelates were put to 
death along with them in the same cruel manner.* 
And John the twenty -third, who was obliged to resign, 
was accused before the Council of Constance in 1414, 
(and he did not attempt to repel the charges,) of hav- 
ing been of a wicked disposition from his childhood; 
lewd, dissolute, a liar, and addicted almost to every 
vice ; of having raised himself to the Pontificate, by 
causing his predecessor to be poisoned; and of having 
committed fornication with maids, adultery with 
wives, incest with his brother's wife, and with nuns," 
(in some MSS. with 300.) And the memorial con- 
cluded with these words: " He is universally looked 
upon, as will be found on the slightest inquiry, as the 
sink of vice, the enemy of all virtue, the mirror of 
infamy; and all who know him speak of him as a 
devil incarnate.' 7 ! And yet he also gave orders to 
many bishops and presbyters. And while Innocent 
the Eighth is represented by Marullus as having left 
a number of natural children, it is stated by Burchard 
that Alexander the Sixth, who held the Popedom for 
more than eleven years, and must have made a num- 
ber of prelates who ordained others, "was a great 
lover of women, and that in his time the apostolic 
palace was turned into a brothel, a more infamous 
brothel than any other in Rome." And he mentions 
" an entertainment given in the palace to fifty of the 
most noted courtezan? in the city," and describes a 
variety of particulars that took place, to which I can- 
not make even the slightest allusion.:}: If these things, 
however, were so, (and they were attested by men 
whose veracity is unquestionable, and who not only 
had the best opportunities to be acquainted with the 
facts, but were zealous members of the Church of 

* Bower, vol. vii. p. 62, 63. 

t Bower, vol. vii. p. 166, 167. \ Ibid. vol. vii. p. 368. 



304 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

Rome,) I would ask any candid and impartial judge, 
whether he really thinks that men like these could 
preserve the succession? Their own orders, as we 
have seen, were purchased with money, and conse- 
quently were void.* And so far from possessing the 
character of true prophets, and exhibiting their fruits, 
(Matt. vii. 15-20,) they are described by those who 
would not misrepresent them, " as murderers, adulte- 
rers, sodomites, incestuous persons', Pilates, impostors, 
the abomination of desolation, sinks of vice, monsters 
of iniquity, and devils incarnate." Surely orders 
obtained from such men, by the imposition of their 
foul and polluted hands, and whose own orders 
laboured under a fatal defect, could not be valid, and 
those who received them could not give valid orders 
to others. And as this happened not merely in a few, 
but in thousands of instances during a succession of 
ages, partly in the Eastern, but more frequently and 
extensively in the Western Church, it follows upon 
your principles and those of the Papists, that neither 
of these Churches in the present day, nor any Church 
connected with them, or descended from them, can be 
entitled to the character of a Christian Church, nor can 
any of its members have the smallest hope that he 
shall be permitted to share in the blessings of salva- 
tion. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* This argument for the invalidity of their orders is drawn not 
merely from one, but the whole of the leading points referred to in 
this letter. 



305 



LETTER XIX. 

The Bible the only standard by which we are to regulate our opinions re« 
specting faith and practice, the orders in the ministry, and the rites and 
ordinances of the Christian Church. — This the doctrine of the Bible itself, 
and of the early Fathers, each of whom rejected the opinions of the other 
Fathers on every subject when not supported by Scripture, or when con- 
trary to its statements. — This the doctrine, too, of Luther, and of the most 
eminent Reformers of the Church of England. — The Fathers not safe 
guides respecting the meaning of Scripture on othfr subjects besides 
Church government. — Numerous instances of the gross misinterpretation 
of the plainest passages in the writings of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ire* 
naeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Jerome. 
— Numerous instances also of their departing from the doctrine of the 
Apostles on some of the leading points of evangelical belief, and of their 
introducing into the Church superstitious rites and idolatrous observances. 
— This acknowledged by Whitgift and Cox. — Presumptive proof which it 
presents that they might depart as far from the original form of ecclesiastical 
government which was appointed for the Church. 

Reverend Sir, — If I have succeeded, in a previous 
part of these letters, in proving, according to the opin- 
ion of WicklifF, and other distinguished individuals 
before the Reformation, of your most eminent bishops 
at that memorable era,* and of the eight thousand 

* The present curate of Derry, in his Treatise on Episcopacy and 
Presbytery, p. 43, maintains, that as it is said in the Ordinal, " it is 
evident unto all men reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, -that 
from the Apostles' time there hath been three orders of ministers in 
Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons/' the early Reformers 
of the Church of England believed in the divine institution of Episco- 
pacy. This, however, is an inference which is opposed to their avow- 
ed sentiments before quoted, p. 98, 99, where they declare, that 
" bishops and priests were no two things, but both one thing in the 
beginning of Christ's religion." Besides, they do not say that these 
orders existed in the Apostles' time, but from or soon after the Apos- 
tles' time, according to the opinion of Jerome, in which Tonstal 4 
Stokesley and Dr. Cox (p. 98) expressed their concurrence. And 
though the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum points out in different 
sections the duties of bishops, priests and deacons, this was absolutely 
necessary, since these orders were to be retained in the Church of 
England, but is no more a proof that they were regarded as of divine 
institution, than its proposing to introduce a class of men into that 
Church, like Presbyterian ruling elders, (see cap. viii. 10,) would 
have been a proof to Mr. Boyd, that these office-bearers were regard. 
cd as entitled to lay claim to a similar origin. 

He says in regard to Stillingfleet, that he adopted views afterwards 

different from those which he defended in his Irenicuin, and quotes 

from him, p. 50, these doleful expressions, " Will you not allow one 

20 



306 LETTERS ON 

ministers who subscribed the Articles of the League 
of Smalkald, as well as the Confessions of the foreign 
Protestant Churches, that diocesan Episcopacy is not 

single person who happened to write about these matters, when he 
was very young, in twenty years time of the most busy and thought- 
ful part of his life to see reason to alter his judgment ?" Now, cer- 
tainly we have no right to deny that he was entitled to alter his judg- 
ment after he was made a bishop ; but, as he did not answer the 
arguments by which he supported his former opinion, and as no one 
has since done it, and Mr. Boyd has not even attempted it, he must 
excuse us for bringing them again under his (Mr. Boyd's) notice, and 
that of the other defenders of Episcopacy, and calling upon them to 
answer them. 

He complains that Presbyterians, when quoting the first part of 
Bishop Bedell's Reply to Waddington, the Papist, in which he admits, 
that " a bishop and a presbyter are all one, as St. Jerome maintains 
and proves out of Holy Scripture and all antiquity," leave out the lat- 
ter part. The latter part, however, relates to a totally different sub- 
ject; and as the former was adduced merely to show that Bishop 
Bedell did not consider Episcopacy as of divine right, (and this was 
clearly his opinion,) it was all that was required, and there was no 
occasion in settling that point to refer to the other. 

He says, p. 45, that when the Reformers of the English Church 
contended for the identity of bishops and presbyters, it was the old 
opinion which they entertained as Papists, and which was adopted 
by many of the ministers of the Church of Rome, in consequence of 
their believing in transubstantiation. For " it was held inconsistent 
to allow that the priest could transmute the elements into Deity, and 
yet be inferior to any in ecclesiastical standing." The same asser- 
tion was made long ago by Downam, who says, in the Defence of his 
Sermons, p. 104, "This new Popish conceipt of confounding bishops 
and presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the masse, and 
their doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby every priest is as able to 
make his Maker as the Pope himself." Jerome, however, did not be- 
lieve in transubstantiation, and wrote eight hundred years before it 
was introduced into the Church of Rome ; and yet he represents it as 
the doctrine of Scripture that bishops and presbyters are the same. 
Atto, Bishop of Verceil, who lived two hundred years before transub- 
stantiation was adopted into the creed of that Church, denied the 
divine right of Episcopacy. The Culdee presbyters, who never em- 
braced that doctrine, ordained presbyters and bishops. Nay, the 
Councils of Constance and Trent, who were zealous for transubstan- 
tiation, instead of holding, as we would naturally have expected, upon 
Mr. Boyd's hypothesis, the identity of bishops and presbyters, main- 
tained the divine institution of Episcopacy, and pronounced an 
anathema against all who denied it, while Wickliff, Armacanus, and 
all who were zealous for the Reformation of the Church asserted, that 
according to Scripture there was no difference between bishops and 
presbyters. So contrary to the fact is the account which was long 
ago given by Downam, and which is repeated by the present curate 
of Derry, of the circumstances which led the first Reformers to avow 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 307 

sanctioned by Scripture, but is of mere human origin, 
I might pass over in silence the argument in support 
of it, which has been derived from the writings of the 
early fathers. Though the latter may illustrate the 
statements of the Bible, on any subject, as far as they 
correspond with it, they are not to be allowed to usurp 
its place, nor to add to what it announces a single ar- 
ticle of religious belief which we are bound to em- 
brace, or a single precept which we are bound to obey, 
or a single order in the Christian ministry which we 
are bound to adopt, or a single branch of the consti- 
tution of the Church which we are bound to receive. 
" The Bible, and the Bible alone," in all these respects, 
"is the religion of Protestants;" and it alone is "able 
to make them perfect, and furnish them thoroughly 
for every good word and every good work." And 
"to the law and the testimony:" if any thing which 
is propounded to us on any subject speak not accord- 
ing to their word, " it is because there is no light in it." 
And as such is the principle by which we must 
regulate our opinions, if we believe in the explicit 
declarations of Scripture respecting its own perfection, 
and as the only rule of faith and practice, so it is the 
only principle by which Christians in general, from 
the earliest ages, have formed their opinions on every 
part of religious truth. It was the principle, for 
instance, by which the ancient fathers judged of every 
thing which was contained in the writings of others 
of the fathers. " Deare brother," said Augustine to 
Jerome, (and I choose rather to quote him in the 
translation of Frith, one of your Martyrs, p. 53 of his 
works,) I thinke that you will not have your bookes 
reputed like unto the workes of the Prophetes and 
Apostles; for I {the Scripture reserved) do read all 
other men's workes on that maner, that I doe not 
beleve them, because the author so sayth,he he never 
so well learned and holy, except that he can certifie 
me by the Scripture, or cleare reason that he sayth 

their belief of the latter opinion , and it is the more reprehensible in 
him, (Mr. Boyd,) as he ought unquestionably to have known that they 
appeal in support of it to Scripture. 



308 LETTERS ON 

true. And even so would I, that other men should 
read my bookes as I read theirs."* And again ob- 
serves Jewel, in his Defense of his Apology, p. 59, 
"Joining all the doctours and fathers together, he 
saith thus, Ipse mi hi pro omnibus, fyc. Instead of all 
these learned fathers, or rather above them all, Paul 
the Apostle commeth to my minde. To him I runne; 
to him I appeale from all maner writers, (doctours 
and fathers,) that think otherwise." "It is necessary 
for us," says Origen, "to appeal to the Scriptures, for 
our senses and interpretations without these witnesses 
are not entitled to credit."! "There are others," says 
Jerome, "who have erred in the faith, both Greeks 
and Latins, whose names I need not mention, lest I 
seem to defend him, (Origen,) not by his own merits, 
but by the mistakes of others.";}: And in another 
place he remarks, "I think that Origen ought to be 
read on account of his erudition, as well as Tertullian, 
Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris, and some ecclesias- 
tical writers, both Greeks and Latins, that we may 
choose from them ivhat is good, and avoid what is 
bad, according to the injunction of the Apostle, Prove 
all things, hold fast that which is good."|| It was the 
principle by which Luther and the foreign Reformers, 
who were honoured to bear such a distinguished part 
in discovering, declaring, and vindicating the truth on 
the most important subjects, judged what they met 
with in the writings of the fathers. " I follow Au- 
gustine," said the first of these great and holy men, 
"when he agrees with the Scripture, and leave him 
when he falls short of it, or goes against or beyond it. 
In matters affecting conscience I regard the word of 
no man, but of God alone."§ And the same was the 
principle which guided your Reformers in forming 

* Epist. ad Haer. torn. ii. fol. 14. 

t Tom. u p. 628. 

t " Erraverunt in fide alii," &c. Epist. 65, ad Pam. 

|j Epist. 76, ad Tranquil. 

^ " Sequor Augustinum ubi cum Scriptura sentit, et relinquo si citra 
vel contra Scripturam loquitur. In re conscientiarum nullius hominis 
sed solius Dei amplector." Seckendorf, lib. i. p. 283. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 309 

their opinion of the writings of the fathers, and which, 
as stated by Hooper in the following passages, is 
worthy of the grave and serious consideration of 
every Episcopalian, when, after failing to establish 
his particular views of ecclesiastical polity from the 
Sacred Scriptures, he attempts to prop them by quota- 
tions from the fathers. "The water at the fountane 
hed," says he, "is more halsome and pure then when 
it is caryd abrode in roten pypes. I had rather folow 
the shadow of Christ then the body of all generall 
conselles or doctors sith the death of Christe. The 
verite of Christe's religion was perfet in Chryste's 
tyme, and in the tyme of the Apostelles. None sith 
that time so pure. Saynct Hierome, in Vita Malchi, 
saith that his. time was darkenys in the respect of the 
Apostelles' tyme." And again he remarks, "Basilius, 
Ambrose, Epiphanius, Augustine, Bernerd and others, 
thoughe they stayed themselves in the knowledge of 
Christ, and erryd not in ony principall article of the 
faythe, yet they did inordinatly and more than 
inoughe extolle the doctrine and tradicion of men, 
and after the deathe of the Apostellis, every doctor's 
tyme was subject unto such ceremonye and mannes' 
decrees, that was neither profetable nor necessari." 
After which he adds, " The Scrij)ture soly, and the 
Apostelles'' Churche is to befoloivyd, and no man's 
authority. Be he Augustine, Tertullian, or other 
Cherubim or Seraphim, unto the rules and canones of 
the Scripture must man trust, and reforme his errores 
therby,or else he shall not reform himselfe, but rather 
deform his consciens."* 

But while such is the principle by which enlighten- 
ed Christians in every age have been led to estimate 
the opinions of the fathers, and while we ought not to 
receive a single point of religious belief, or rite, or 
article which relates to the constitution of the Christian 
Church, though it may have been held in their days, 
unless it is sanctioned by Scripture, yet I shall wave 
this circumstance, and consider the argument which 

* Declaration of Christ and bis Offices, chap, iv, 



310 LETTERS ON 

has been drawn from their writings. And there is 
certainly none to which some at least of the advocates 
of diocesan Episcopacy attach greater weight; for 
they represent them as delivering a united testimony 
to its existence in the Church from the earliest ages ; 
and from the peculiar advantages which they imagine 
were possessed by many of the fathers for interpreting 
aright the statements of Scripture, and the great im- 
probability of their deviating in the least from that 
form of polity which was approved of by the Apos- 
tles, they look upon it as absolutely decisive of the 
question. Now, upon this boasted argument, which 
has frequently been urged with the greatest triumph 
by the friends of Episcopacy, I beg to submit to you 
the following observations: 

In the first place, the superior qualifications of these 
early writers to interpret correctly the statements of 
Scripture on the subject in dispute will be best ascer- 
tained by examining their expositions of a variety of 
passages on other subjects. I have referred already 
to some of them in my eleventh letter, but in addition 
to these I would select the following: Take, for in- 
stance, the Epistle of Barnabas, one of the most ancient 
of these writers, for it is allowed by Bishop Tomline, 
Dr. Cave, Archbishop Wake, and Bishop Pearson, 
that he was the fellow-labourer of the Apostles.* He 
tells us that "the three young men who were to 
sprinkle the ashes of the red heifer, (Numb, xix.) 
denoted Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because they 
were great before God; and that the wool was to be 
put upon wood, because the kingdom of Jesus was to 
be founded upon wood, or upon the cross;"t that the 
precept, " thou shalt not eat of the hyena, signifies, 
thou shalt not be an adulterer, because that animal 
every year changes its sex, and is sometimes male, 
sometimes female; and that the precept, thou shalt 
not eat of the weazel, suggests that wickedness should 

* Preface to Tomline's Elements, vol. i. p. 18. Hist. Liter, p. 11, 
12. Discourse on the Genuine Epistles of the Apost. Fathers, p. 69, 
70. Lect. Secund. in Act. 

t Clerici Patres, vol. i. p. 25. 



PUSEVITE EPISCOPACY. 311 

not be committed with the mouth, because that 
animal conceives with its mouth"* Take Justin 
Martyr, who considers these expressions respecting 
Judah, (Gen. xlix. 11,) "He washed his garments in 
wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes," as a 
prediction respecting the death of Christ, and who 
finds out a reason for the form of the cross on which 
he was appointed to suffer, in the sails of ships, in the 
plough, in the shape of our bodies, and in the horn of 
the unicorn.t Take Irenaeus, who says "that the 
name Jesus, in Hebrew, is composed of two letters 
and a half, and signifies the heavens;" that " the 
twopence or denarii which were left by the good 
Samaritan with the host who was to take care of the 
man who fell among thieves, were the image and 
superscription of the Father and the Son; and that the 
unclean animals which did not divide the hoof were 
those which were destitute of faith, and who did. not 
meditate on the oracles of God. "J Take Clemens 
Alexandrinus, who informs us that " the conduct of 
the Saviour is always straight and agreeable to his 
nature, as is intimated by the letter Iota in the name 
Jesus; that in these words of the first Psalm, < He 
shall be as a tree planted by the rivers of water, which 
yieldeth its fruit in its season, and whose leaf shall not 
fail,' there is a reference to the resurrection, *£<>$ i^v 
u.va$a6iv tjvtZa-to • that the feet of Christ, which the 
woman anointed, (Luke vii.) denoted his divine doc- 
trine, which travelled to the uttermost parts of the 
earth with distinguished glory;" and that marriage is 
pfoper, because, when our Lord says, (Mat. xviii.) 
that " where two or three meet in his name, he will 
be in the midst of them, it means a man, his wife and 
his child, avbe,o. xat, yumixa xat tsxvov. ,} § Take Ter- 
tullian, who says that the mark which Ezekiel was to 

* I cannot insert what follows, as it is so grossly offensive to every 
delicate mind. 

t Dialog, cum Trypho. p. 40 ; Second Apol. p. 38 ; Dial. p. 70. 

t Lib. ii. cap. 41, De Haer.; lib. iii. cap. 19 ; lib. v. cap. 8. 

§ Paedag. lib. i. cap. 9, p. 93, 94; ibid. lib. i. cap. 10, p. 96 ; ibid, 
lib. ii. cap. 8, p. 129. Stromata, lib. iii. p. 331. 



312 LETTERS ON 

put on the foreheads of the men who sighed and cried 
in the midst of Jerusalem " was the letter Tau, or the 
sign of the cross ; that the reason why the Israelites 
overcame the Amalekites, was because Moses lifted 
up his hands in the form of a cross, and they were 
commanded by one whose name was Jesus or Joshua; 
that it is the Saviour who is spoken of, Deut. xxxiii. 
17, when it is said, ' His glory is like the firstling of 
his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of uni- 
corns, and that with them he shall push the people 
together to the ends of the earth,' because the horns of 
the bull resemble the two extended arms of the cross; 
and that by Simeon and Levi, who are mentioned, 
Gen. xlix. 5, we are to understand the scribes and 
pharisees who were to persecute Christ."* And 
omitting the vision of Hermas and other early writ- 
ings, on which I am unwilling to enlarge, consider out 
of the many passages which might be selected from 
Origen what he says of the servants of Isaac, who 
contended with the Philistines, " whom he affirms to 
have been Matthew, Mark, Luke and John;" and 
the proof which is produced by Cyprian to show that 
the Redeemer is God's hand from these words, " Is 
God's hand weak that it cannot save?" (Is. lix. 1-4.) 
That the Jews would fasten him to the cross from 
these passages; "I have spread out my hands all the 
day unto a rebellious people," (Is. lxv. 2.) " Thy life 
shall hang in doubt before thine eyes, and thou shalt . 
fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of 
thy life," (Deut. xxviii. 66;) and " that they would not 
understand the Scriptures," because Paul says, fl 
Cor. x. 1,) 'I would not that ye should be ignorant how 
that all our fathers were under the cloud.' "t And 
reflect only further on what is said by Jerome, can. 3, 
in Mat. vi. 26, where he maintains very gravely, 
" that by the fowls of the air, who neither reap nor 
gather into barns, we are to understand the devils; 
and that by the lilies of the field, which neither toil 

* Lib. iii. contra Marcion, p. 813. Lib. advers. Judaeos,"p. 169. 
t Orig. torn, i, p. 44. Cyprian's Testimonies against the Jews, p. 
26, 41, 56. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 313 

nor spin, are meant the angels." Are these then the 
men, I ask now, as I inquired formerly, when I wrote 
the article from which I have taken a number of 
these extracts,* (and I might have given a thousand 
other instances,) " who have interpreted so correctly 
the word of God; and is it to them that we are to look 
up with such submission and respect, when they point 
out to us from Scripture either the articles of our faith," 
or the particular form of ecclesiastical polity which 
the blessed Redeemer has appointed to his Church? 

It may be alleged, however, that though their inter- 
pretation of these passages is extremely absurd, and 
displays an ignorance of the meaning of the Scriptures 
which is seldom to be met with in Protestant coun- 
tries in the present day, yet the errors into which they 
fell when they delivered these expositions are of in- 
ferior moment; and it will by no means follow that 
they erred as to doctrine, or deviated from that form 
of ecclesiastical polity which was sanctioned by the 
Apostles. " As the three authors," says Bishop Rus- 
set, " from whose writings I have quoted, were dis- 
ciples of the Apostles, lived in their society, knew 
their doctrines and their views in regard to the consti- 
tution of the Church, we cannot permit ourselves to 
imagine that they would sanction a polity which had 
not the example and approbation of those heavenly 
teachers to support it. It is universally allowed among 
the earliest Christian writers, that Ignatius and Poly- 
carp were ordained by the hands of the Apostles ; and 
St. Paul himself informs us, that Clemens was a fellow- 
labourer with him in the Gospel of Christ. Are we 
not then entitled to regard the model of ecclesiastical 
constitution which these holy men adopted, as pos- 
sessing the full authority and sanction of their inspired 
masters ? Or must we believe, that, under the very 
eye of those from whom they received their knowledge 
of the faith — the immediate and personal servants 
of the Redeemer — those divine commissioners upon 

* Review of Bishop Tomline's Refutation of Calvinism in the Edin- 
burgh Christian Instructor, vol. iv. p. 394, 395, which I published 
many years ago. 



314 LETTERS ON 

whom the foundations of the Church were laid, they 
deviated from the pattern with which they were thus 
supplied, and constructed a system according to their 
own views or convenience?"* And in the following 
page, he endeavours to show that it is equally impro- 
bable that Irenaeus, " who lived about the middle of 
the second century, and who, as he himself tells us, 
was acquainted with Polycarp, and heard him preach," 
would depart from the polity which had been approved 
by the Apostles ; and the same reasoning has been 
applied to the fathers, even in the days of Cyprian. 

I shall by and by inquire into the amount of supe- 
riority ascribed to bishops in the writings of these 
fathers, and if I am not greatly mistaken, it will avail 
but little for promoting the cause of diocesan Epis- 
copacy. But at present I content myself with meeting 
the statement of the extreme improbability of their 
departing in the least from the form of polity which 
was approved by the Apostles by a similar statement 
of an equal improbability, that they would depart 
from the doctrines, and rites, and practices which had 
received the sanction of these illustrious ministers. 
And if it shall be found upon inquiry, (and it is a 
question of fact,) that they departed in a short time 
from a number of the latter, it will appear equally 
credible, since we are told by Paul that " the mystery 
of iniquity had begun to work" even in his day, that 
they might, to a small extent during the first two cen- 
turies, deviate from the former. 

Now, it is plain that they departed at an early 
period from the doctrine of the Apostles on several 
important points. When Cecil accordingly wrote to 
Cox to assist Elizabeth with his advice about the 
perusal of the fathers, the bishop replied, that " when 
all is done, the Scripture is that that pearseth. Chry- 
sostom and the Greek fathers favour Pelagius; Ber- 
nard sometimes is for monkery; and he trusted her 
Grace meddled with them but at spare hours."t And 

* Historical Evidence of the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, 
p. 27, 28. 

t Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 324. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 315 

said Whitgift in his Answer to Cartwright, p. 472, 
" My comparison of the Church of England with the 
fathers shall consist in these three points, truth of doc- 
trine, honesty of life, and right use of external things. 
Touching the fyrst, that is, truth of doctrine, I shall 
not need much to labour; for I think T. C. and his 
adherents will not deny, but that the doctrine taught 
and professed by our bishops at this day is much 
more perfect and sounder than it commonly was in 
any age after the Apostles'* time. For the most part 
of the auncientest bishops were deceyved with that 
grosse opinion of a thousande yeares after the resur- 
rection, wherein the kingdome of Christe should here 
remaine upon earth, the fauvorers whereof were called 
Millenarii. Cyprian and the whole Council of Car- 
thage erred in re-baptization. And Cyprian himself 
also was greatly overseene in making it a matter so 
necessarie in the celebration of the Lord's supper, to 
have water mingled with wyne, which was no doubt 
at that tyme common to moe than to him. But the 
other opinion which he confuteth, of usyng water 
only, is more absurd, and yet it had at that tyme 
patrones among the bishops/' And it is impossible 
to look into the writings of the fathers without perceiv- 
ing the unsoundness of many of their opinions. Justin 
Martyr, for instance, asserts that demons were the 
offspring of women who had connection with angels; 
and he asserts, that the spirits of the saints, and even 
of the ancient prophets who died before the coming of 
the Saviour, were under the power of these demons ; 
" in potestatem venisse talium virtutum ;" and that 
therefore, when Christ was dying, he commended his 
spirit to his heavenly Father.* And he believed very 
firmly in the doctrine of the Millennium, as it was 
taught by Papias, of which the following account is 
delivered by lrenaeus, and it is certainly most unlike 
to what was learned from the Apostles. " The days," 
said he, " will come, in which there shall grow vine- 
yards, having each 10,000 stocks; and each stock, 

* First Apol. p. 7, and Second Apol. p. 15. Dialog, cum Trypho. 
p. 79, 80; ibid. p. 63. 



316 LETTERS ON 

10,000 branches; each branch, 10,000 shoots; each 
shoot, 10,000 bunches; each bunch , 10,000 grapes, 
and each grape squeezed shall yield Uventy-five mea- 
sures of wine; and when any of the saints shall go 
to pluck a bunch, another bunch will cry out, I am a 
better, take me, and bless the Lord through me. In 
like manner, a grain of wheat sown shall bear 10,000 
stalks; each stalk, 10,000 grains; and each grain, 
10,000 lbs. of the finest flour; and so all other fruits, 
seeds and herbs in the same proportion. These words 
Papias, a disciple of St. John, and companion of Poly- 
carp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in his fourth 
book, and adds, that they are credible to those who 
believe." Irenaeus asserts that the Saviour lived 
upon earth " forty or fifty years;" and says that this 
is not only mentioned in the Scriptures, but was even 
reported by the elders who had been acquainted with 
St. John to have been declared by that *flpostle ; that 
Enoch, before he was translated, was employed by 
God on a mission to the angels ; " Dei legatione ad 
Angelos fungebatur ;" (and the Commentaries of Cy- 
ril, Lyra and Feuardentius, who would understand 
by the angels the antediluvian giants, are contra- 
dicted by the expressions that follow;) and that the 
souls of the dead depart into an invisible place which 
is appointed for them by God, and remain there till 
the resurrection, when they are admitted into heaven.* 
Very grievous errors were maintained by Clemens 
Alexandrinus, one of the best of the fathers. Though 
he acknowledges in one passage that " we are alto- 
gether corrupt by nature," yet it is plain, from what 
he says elsewhere, that he considered mankind as cor- 
rupt only from practice, for he asks, " how the child 
who has done nothing can have fallen under the 
curse of Jldam?" And after asserting, that those 
who had lived under the law before the coming of 
Christ would be justified by faith only, and that those 
who were to be justified from among the Gentiles 
required not only faith, but as they had followed phi- 

* Lib. ii. cap. 39 ; lib. iv. cap. 30 ; lib. v. cap. 31. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 317 

losophy, needed to be converted from idolatry, he 
remarks, "that the Lord, after he died, went down to 
Hades, and preached to the Hebrews, that they might 
obtain that blessing; and that his Apostles, when they 
died, preached to Socrates and the other virtuous 
Gentiles, that they might reclaim them from the 
latter, and prepare them for being justified."* And 
he affirms even that the Redeemer himself, though 
he was perfectly holy, was regenerated at his bap- 
tism ; for after referring to the administration of it to 
him by his forerunner, he adds, " Let us ask, then, 
the wise, is Christ, who was regenerated to-day, 

perfect ? Jivdaptda ovv tiov aoq>(*v orpsgov avayswrjOsis 6 

X^ct-oj r;8ri rtXftoj f Paedag. lib. i. cap. 6, p. 68. 

In short, while it was the opinion of Origen, that 
neither the sufferings of the wicked, nor the happiness 
of the righteous, would properly speaking be eternal, 
his sentiments about the atonement and many other 
subjects were in direct opposition to the doctrine 
of the Apostles. He admits, indeed, the substitu- 
tion of Christ, but asserts at the same time, that 
not only apostles and prophets, but even the celes- 
tial angels and glorified saints may be our pro- 
pitiatory sacrifices for appeasing the Jllmighty.\ 
Nay, as is acknowledged by Dr. Cave, he imagined 
that Christ died not for men only, " but for angels, 
and devils, and the heavenly bodies"% And so gene- 

* Strom, lib. ii. p. 287; ibid. lib. iii. p. 342; ibid. lib. vi. p. 459, 
460; Comp. Strom, lib ii. p. 277. 

t Tom. i. p. 121, 136, 150. "Sic ergo fortassis, et si quis est ange- 
lorum, coelestiumque virtutum, aut si quis justorum hominum, vel 
etiam sanctorum propbetarum atque apostolorum, qui enixius inter- 
veniat pro peccatorurn hominum hie pro repropitiatione divina velut 
aries aut vitulus, aut hircus oblatus esse sacrificium ob purificationem 
populo impetrandam accipi potest," torn. i. p. 40, 93. 

X Review of Tomline's Refutation of Calvinism, Christ. Instructor, 
vol. iv. p. 397. Ernesti, though not a Calvinist, makes the following 
remark in his unpublished MS. Lectures on the doctrine of the fa- 
thers : M Videtur existimasse," says he of Justin Martyr, " hominem 
habere a natura libcrum arbitrium, h. e. facultatem eligendi bonum 
et malum, rectc et male agendi, servandi Dei praecepta et violandi. 
Verum si ex verbis est judicandum (mines fere doctores rcclesiae hujns 
criminis rei sunt, quia omnes fere de libero arbitrio non satis accurate 
locuti sunt." 



318 LETTERS ON 

ral was this apostasy from the purity of the faith, that, 
as was remarked again by Whitgift, " almost all the 
bishops and learned writers of the Greke Church, 
yea and the Latines also, for the. most part were 
spotted with the doctrines of free will, of merites, of 
invocation of sainctes, and such lyke." 

Nor did they deviate less from the example of the 
Apostles, in regard to many rites and religious obser- 
vances. We have a remarkable instance of this in 
the time which was selected for the celebration of 
Easter, the one-half of the Church contending, with 
Polycarp, that it ought to be kept on the day of the 
Jewish Passover, and appealing in support of it to the 
opinion and practice of the Apostle John, and the other, 
with Anicetus, maintaining that it ought to be kept 
on a subsequent day, and appealing in proof of it to 
the opinion and practice of Peter and Paul. It is 
plain, however, that one of them at least, and most 
probably both, must have erred as to this matter, for 
no day seems to have been fixed for it, as far as can 
be collected from Scripture, in the time of the Apostles. 
And if they departed in this respect from the example 
of these early ministers of Christ, though many of 
them had seen them, and were acquainted with their 
practice, is it not equally conceivable, that they may 
have departed from their form of ecclesiastical polity? 
The Apostles never prayed for the souls of the dead ; 
but it would seem from what is mentioned in the 
writings of Tertullian, Cyril, and others, that this was 
the practice of the Church from an early period. 
" Then," says the last of these authors, " we pray 
during the celebration of the Eucharist for all who 
have lived among us, believing that it is a great assist- 
ance to those souls for which prayer is made, while 
that holy and awful sacrifice is presented on the al- 
tar."* And in the Greek Liturgy of Chrysostom, they 
say, especially for our " most holy, immaculate, most 

* B.nA x.*t u7ri£ 7rsLvrw a.7rhco<na)v iv »jmv" &c. Tertullian, in his 
Liber de Corona, p. 341, says, " Oblationes pro defuncth, pro nata- 
litiis annua die facirnus." Consult, too, his Treatise de Monogamia, 
cap. x., and Cyprian's Epistle ad Plebem et Cler. Furnitanorum. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 319 

blessed Lady, the mother of God, and ever Virgin 
Mary." The Apostles never prayed to the saints in 
in heaven to intercede for them with God; but this 
seems to have been common in the early Church. 
Gregory Nazianzen, in his eighteenth oration, speaks 
of a nun " who supplicated the Virgin Mary to afford 
aid to a virgin in peril." And Ambrose, in his funeral 
oration for his friend Satyrus, says that the latter 
" had asked only of St. Lawrence the Martyr a safe 
passage."* The Apostles never prayed looking only 
towards the east. But, says Tertullian, in the name 
of the Christians of his day, " We pray toward the 
east,"t because, as he observes in another treatise, 
(Advers. Valent., p. 2S4,) " it is a type of Christ, 

* "Read," says Bishop Newton in his 23d Dissertation, "the Ora- 
tion of Basil on the Martyr Mamas." 

"Mamas," says the author of Ancient Christianity, vol. ii. p. 174, 
" a shepherd of Cappadocia, had suffered about the year 275 ; churches 
had been built to his honour, and, as it appears, he had come in these 
provinces to be as much importuned as was St. Lawrence at Milan, 
or St. Januarius at Naples, being one of the dii majores of the Greek 
Church ; nor was there any sort of aid he would not render to his 
favoured votaries. In explanation of Basil's allusions, it should be 
observed, that a principal function of these divinities was to discover 
lost or stolen goods, in dreams, to those who had occasion to seek 
such information at their hands. 

" Memores estote martyris, quotquot illo per somnia potiti estis, 
quotquot in hoc loco constituti, adjutorem ipsum ad precandum ha- 
buistis; quibuscunque ex nomine advocatus ipsis admit operibus : 
quotquot aberrantes ad viam reduxit, quotquot sanitati restituit, qui- 
buscunque filios jam mortuos ad vitam reductos reddidit, quotquot 
vitae terrninos prorogavit. Collectis in unum his omnibus, ex com- 
muni symbolo, martyri encomium construite." Tom. i. p. 595. 

" Read," says Bishop Newton, " his Oration on the forty martyrs." 

"These," says the author of Ancient Christianity, vol. ii. p. 176, 
" were so many soldiers, who, at Sebaste, in Armenia, had suffered 
with great constancy, under Licinius, so late as the year 320. A 
magnificent church had been erected in honour of them at Cesarea, 
and in which had been treasured some particles of their inestimable 
dust, to which the people were accustomed to crowd, under direction 
of their priests, for obtaining cures and deliverances." 

The following are the terms in which Basil apostrophizes these 
forty martyrs. 

" O holy choir ! oh ! sacred band ! oh ! unconquerable phalanx ! 
oh ! common guardians of the human family 1 kind participants of our 
cares! helpers of our prayers! most potent advocates (ambassadors!) 
stars of the world ! flowers of the Churches ! O sanctum chorum," &c. 

t "Nos ad oricntia rcgionem precari ;" Apol. c. xvi. p. 688. 



320 LETTERS ON 

Christi figuram." The Apostles did not breathe on 
the faces of those who applied for baptism to exorcize 
them, or expel the devil from them, before they re- 
ceived that ordinance. But this, as appears from 
Clemens Alexandrinus and Cyprian, was done to 
heretics and schismatics by the ancient Church. Nor 
did they feed those to whom that sacrament was ad- 
ministered with milk and honey, and yet Tertullian 
tells us that this was the practice of the primitive 
Church.* Nor did they clothe them with white gar- 
ments, which they were to wear for a week, saying 
to them, "receive these white and unspotted gar- 
ments, which you must produce without spot before 
the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may 
have eternal life;" and yet this was done by the early 
Church. Nor did they anoint them with oil ; and yet 
such, as is mentioned by Tertullian and Cyprian, was 
the custom which was followed in the first ages of the 
Church. "As soon," says the former, "as we are 
baptized we are anointed with the blessed unction — 
an external carnal unction is poured upon us, but it 
benefits us spiritually. "t And says the latter, " He 
that is baptized must of necessity be anointed, that 
having received the chrism or unction, he may be the 
anointed of God."± And they never signed them 
with the sign of the cross, nor confirmed them by the 
imposition of hands, except when they communicated 
miraculous gifts. But both these forms were observed 
by the primitive Church. " The flesh," says Ter- 
tullian, " is signed, that the soul may be fortified." 
" And when the unction is finished, then hands are 
imposed, with prayers invoking and inviting the Holy 
Spirit."§ The Apostles never administered the Eu- 
charist to infants; and yet it would seem that it was 
done in the days of Cyprian by the ancient Church, 

* " Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus ;" de 
Corona, p. 431. 

t " Egressi de Javacro perungimur," &c. ; de Baptismo, p. 599. 

t " Ungi quosque necesse est earn," &c. ; Epist. 70. 

§ De Resurrectione Carnis et de Baptismo, p. 600. Those who 
were baptized in infancy do not appear to have been signed and con- 
firmed till afterwards. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 321 

for he speaks of a deacon who " forced upon a little 
female infant against her will of the sacrament of the 
cup ; but the Eucharist would not remain in a body 
and mouth that had been polluted previously with 
bread and wine, which had been used in the soul- 
slaughter of perishing Christians."* The Apostles 
did not take the Eucharist fasting, and yet Augustine 
informs us in his 1 18th Epistle, that "it was the custom 
of Christians over the whole world to partake of it 
only when fasting. (Toto orbe hunc morem tenuisse 
quo Christiani nisi jejuni Eucharistiam non accipe- 
rent.") Nor did they " fast on every Monday through 
the whole year, or use only dried meat and bread with 
salt and water at Lent," which Epiphanius (Advers. 
Haeres. in Epilogo,) says, was "an apostolic tra- 
dition." 

The Apostles were not in the habit of pouring a 
little of the Sacramental wine, or dropping a little of 
the bread, or of their ordinary food, on the ground, or 
of making the sign of the cross on their foreheads 
when they put on or off their clothes, or went into the 
bath, or sat down to meat, or lighted their lamps, or 
retired to bed, or set out on a journey, and at every 
successive stage of it. And yet Tertullian informs 
us that it was the general practice of the Christians 
of his day, though he confesses that there was no 
command for it in Scripture, and justifies it, like you, 
only by tradition.t The Apostles did not enjoin the 
people to bring the first ripe ears of corn, or the 
first ripe grapes, and present them on the altar that 
they might be blessed by the priests, or to lay upon it 
oil for the lar°ps of the Temple, or incense to be 
burnt during the offering of the Eucharist. And yet 

* De Lapsis. 

t "Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie 
patimur. Ad omnem progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem adi- 
tum et exitum, ad vestitum et calceaturn, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad 
lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos conversatio excrcet, 
frontein crucis signaculo terimus. Harum et aliarum ejusmodi dis- 
ciplinarurr si legem expostules scripturarum, nullam invenies; tra- 
ditio tibi yraetendetur auctrix, consuetude* confirmatrix, et fides ob- 
servatrix." Liber de Corona, p. 341. 

21 



322 LETTERS ON 

all this is sanctioned by the third Apostolic Canon, 
which was made, as is usually alleged by Episcopa- 
lians, within the first three centuries.* The Apostles 
never used such language as the following respecting 
almsgiving, and yet it was common, not only in the 
days of Chrysostom, but in a previous age : " Heaven 
is on sale, and yet we mind it not. Give a crust, and 
take back paradise ; give the least, and receive the 
greatest; give the perishable, receive the imperish- 
able; give the corruptible, receive the incorruptible. "t 
And, without enlarging farther on this painful subject, 
I would conclude these details with the following ac- 
count by the eloquent author of Ancient Christianity, 
of the corruptions which prevailed from the earliest 
times in an increasing degree in the ancient Church. 
" Throughout the east, throughout the west, through- 
out the African Church, virginity they put first and 
foremost, then came maceration of the body, tears, 
psalm-singing, prostrations on the bare earth, humili- 
ations, alms-giving, expiatory labours and sufferings, 
the kind offices of the saints in heaven, the wonder- 
working efficacy of the sacraments, the unutterable 
powers of the clergy, these were the rife and favoured 
themes of animated sermons, and of prolix treatises ; 
and such was the style, spirit, temper and practice of 
the Church, from the banks of the Tigris, to the 
shores of the Atlantic, and from the Scandinavian 
morasses to the burning sands of the great desert; 
such, so far as our extant materials give us any infor- 
mation." % And again he observes, (and there are 
few who have read the writings of the fathers with 
candour and attention, that will not acquiesce in the 
' statement,) " I am bold to express my belief, that if 
we exclude certain crazed fanatics of our times, the 

* " M« t£ov cTg kttu) TreoTayio-Bm <ri inpov a; to BurtctcrTHPiov » ihctiov u; 
<thv Ku%via.v kzi Bujuta.ju.ct rev x.uipq> T/jg ayix; 7rgo9-^oem. E/ t/? I7rio-K.OTOC » 
Trpso-fiurtpys ttolpz t»v tou kvp^iov <Ptara.£iv mv wri t« Buo-tz," &c. Bishop 
Beveridge, in* his Annotations, p. 16, says, " Fructus qui apud Graecos 
a sacerdote tuxoyowrut benedicuntur sunt uva, ficus, malagranata, oli- 
vae, poma, mala Persica, et pruna." The form of benediction both 
in the Greek and Latin Church is subjoined. 

f Homil. 3, torn. ii. p. 348. t Ibid. p. 365. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 323 

least esteemed community of orthodox Christians 
among us, whichever that may be, if taken in the 
mass, and fairly measured against the Church Catholic 
of the first two centuries, would outweigh it deci- 
sively in Christian wisdom, in common discretion, in 
purity of manners, and in purity of creed."* 

If these things, however, are so, I leave it to any 
impartial judge to say, whether it would at all sur- 
prise him to discover, upon examining the writings of 
the fathers, that they had departed by degrees from 
that particular form of ecclesiastical polity which was 
approved by the Apostles. They left the doctrines 
which they had heard from these venerable and holy 
men, or from the lips of their disciples, and adopted 
very dangerous and erroneous opinions on some im- 
portant points of the Christian faith. And they cor- 
rupted those simple religious ordinances which these 
inspired and distinguished ministers of the Redeemer 
prescribed to the Church for the admission of its mem- 
bers, and the regulation of its worship, and introduced 
a variety of superstitious rites and unscriptural ob- 
servances, which constituted the foundation of that 
monstrous system of will-worship and idolatry which 
rose at length to such a fearful height in the Church 
of Rome. And if they deviated so far in both these 
respects from the principles and practice of the origi- 
nal founders of the Christian Church, it is incumbent 
on you to show, that they might not deviate as widely 
in two or three centuries from their form of polity, till 
they established, in the first place, diocesan Episco- 
pacy, and afterwards the Papacy, in the last of which 
instances I trust you are not yet prepared to deny that 
they departed from the Apostles. And till you are 
able to do this, you can no more infer, from the early 
existence of diocesan Episcopacy, though you could 

* Page 110. "Those," says this admirable writer, p. 191, "who 
have known what it is with a hand warm with health, to take within 
their own the hand of a corpse, know how the chill ascends to the 
heart and enters the soul. Of this sort is the feeling- with which, if 
the mind be quickened by scriptural piety, it makes its first acquaint- 
ance with the bod)' of ancient Christianity." 



324 LETTERS ON 

prove it by the strongest historical evidence, that it 
received the sanction of these holy men, than you are 
entitled to infer, from the early existence of these er- 
roneous opinions on subjects of very grave and solemn 
importance, or of these superstitious rites and idola- 
trous observances, that the latter were approved by 
the same individuals, and that the one were to be 
preached in opposition to what they had expressly 
stated in their writings, and the others were to be 
practised throughout future ages in the Christian 
Church. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER XX. 

Extraordinary opinion of the Oxford Tractarians, that the Scriptures, though 
a rule of faith, are not a rule of discipline and practice, and that the latter 
is to be found in the traditions of the Fathers, along with the Scriptures. 
-^-This an impeachment of the perfection of the Scriptures in opposition 
to their own explicit statements, and a mean of virtually adding to the 
institutions which they prescribe to the Church, in opposition to their 
express and solemn warnings. — The traditions of the Fathers not a safe 
guide, because those who deliver them were weak, inexperienced, and 
iallible men, though they lived near to the Apostles; and if the Scrip- 
tures, which were written by men who were inspired, are not sufficient 
to direct us, we can have no assurance that when we are following these 
traditions we are not embracing error. — As much danger of our doing 
this, and of our making void the institutions of Christ, by our not trusting 
in the Scriptures exclusively, but adopting what is recommended by the 
traditions of the Fathers, as there was to the Jews of making void the 
law of God by following the traditions of the elders, because they lived 
near to the prophets, instead of trusting exclusively in the writings of the 
prophets. — Fusebius and Socrates condemn some of the traditions of the 
Fathers, and others of them such as even Puseyites would reject. 

Reverend Sir, — The language which is employed 
by many of the writers of the Oxford Tracts, respect- 
ing the exclusive claims of your National Church 
(Papists and Scottish Episcopalians excepted) to the 
honourable character of a Christian Church, is such 
as is fitted to awaken emotions of no ordinary kind in 
the minds of Protestants, and would require to be jus- 
tified by the most powerful arguments. " She is 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 325 

sprung," they affirm, " from the very Church which 
Christ set up at Jerusalem, and none of the sects (for 
all others are sects) have this great gift. There is not 
one of her bishops who cannot trace his right to guide 
and govern Christ's Church through a long line of 
predecessors, up to the favoured persons who were 
consecrated by the laying on of the holy hands of St. 
Peter and St. Paul. This is a fact which Dissenters 
from the Church of England do not, and cannot deny. 
Her ministry is an appointed condition of the salva- 
tion of the elect" in Britain. They alone have a 
" warrant which marks them exclusively for God's 
ambassadors," and " they are a perpetual earnest of 
communion with the Lord at his table to those who 
come properly prepared to his table. Christ prays 
only for those who believe in him through the word 
of the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops. If 
men would be disciples or Christians, they must be 
baptized by apostolical (episcopal) authority in the 
name of the Holy Trinity. And if they would take 
and eat Christ's body, they must take and eat the 
bread and drink of the cup blessed by those who have 
authority to bless it, in remembrance of him. And in 
Churches which have not the Episcopal succession, 
the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit cannot be 
so certainly depended upon, as for other sanctifying 
purposes, so for the guiding the mind to doctrinal 
truth; nor can they have the same reason to expect 
the presence of the Saviour."* In short, within those 
favoured Churches which have diocesan bishops, ac- 
cording to these writers, there is spiritual light, like 
the physical light in the land of Goshen, which was 
the abode of the Israelites during one of the plagues, 
while in other Churches where these guardians of 
truth and bulwarks against error are not to be seen, 
like the rest of Egypt at that eventful period, there is 
" darkness that may be felt." 

And what is the ground on which they advance 
these lofty and intolerant claims in behalf of Episco- 

* 4th, 1 1 tli, 29th, 30th, 35th, 40th and 57th Tracts. 



326 LETTERS ON 

pacy, at which Cranmer, and Jewel, and Hooker 
would have blushed, and employ such language 
respecting other Churches, where the fruits produced 
both among the old and the young, by the labours of 
their ministers, will bear to be compared with those 
of the ministers of Episcopalian Churches? It is 
partly the different arguments from Scripture which 
have been already considered, and which will by no 
means warrant these haughty assumptions and un- 
charitable conclusions, and partly an argument of a 
very different kind from the testimony of antiquity, to 
prove that Episcopacy was approved by the Apostles, 
which is one of the most extraordinary that I have 
ever met with in support of that position. 

" In the first place," says the author of one of the 
Tracts, " let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 
Episcopacy is in fact not at all mentioned in Scrip- 
ture, even then it would be our duty to receive it. 
Why? Because the first Christians received it. If 
we wish to get at the truth, no matter how we get at it, 
if we get at it. If it be a fact, that the earliest Christian 
communities were universally Episcopal, it is a reason 
for our maintaining Episcopacy, and in proportion to 
our conviction, it is incumbent on us to maintain it." 

" Nor can it be fairly dismissed as a non-essential, 
an ordinance indifferent and mutable, though formerly 
existing over Christendom; for who made us judges 
of essentials and non-essentials? How do we deter- 
mine them ? Does not its universality imply a neces- 
sary connection with Christian doctrine? But it may 
be urged, that we Protestants believe the Scriptures 
to contain the whole rule of duty. Certainly not: 
they constitute a rule of faith, not a rule of practice; 
a rule of doctrine, not a rule of conduct or discipline. 
Where (e. g.) are we told in Scripture that gambling 
is wrong? or again, suicide?" (Tract 45.) "And," 
says Bishop Russel, " Augustine farther reminds us, 
that many things which are not to be found in the 
writings of the Apostles, nor in the councils of later 
ages, yet because they are observed by the whole 
Church, are believed to have been delivered and 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 327 

recommended by their authority."* And again, 
" There are many things which the Universal Church 
holds, and which for this reason are rightly believed 
to have been commanded by the Apostles, although 
they are not found written."! Upon this argument, 
however, which is adduced repeatedly in others of the 
Tracts, and on which considerable stress is laid by the 
writers, I would briefly remark, 

1st, It is certainly strange for any Protestant to 
maintain that the Scriptures are a rule of faith, but 
not of practice ; a rule of doctrine, but not a rule of 
conduct or discipline. You at least will surely admit 
that we need an unerring and infallible rule to direct 
us as to our duty, as well as an infallible rule to guide 
us as to our faith. And you unquestionably ought to 
be prepared to acknowledge that we require such a 
rule in regard to discipline ; for if there be only one 
ministry which Christ has appointed, to which alone 
he has promised his presence, the existence of which 
is " a condition of our salvation," and the members of 
which are the only accredited " ambassadors of hea- 
ven ;" and if he himself has warned us against follow- 
ing the prescriptions and commandments of men in 
our religious services, in what a state must we be, if 
he has not furnished us with a guide on which we can 
unhesitatingly depend, to point out to us the different 
orders in that ministry, and those rites and ordinances 
which he himself has instituted, and which alone he 
will bless ! Now, where is that unerring rule to be 
found, if it is not contained solely and exclusively in 
the Holy Scriptures? Everything which they reveal 
is guaranteed to the Christian as free from the small- 
est mixture of error, because it was written by holy 
men of God, who were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
But if he is to trust only in part to them, and in part 

* Sermon, p. 44. " Multa quae non inveniuntur in Uteris corum 
ncque in conciliis posteriorurn, et tamen quia per universam cuetodi- 
untur ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduntur." 
De Bap. contra Donatistas, lib. ii. c. 7. 

+ " Sunt rnulta quae universa tenet ccclesia, et ob hoc ab Apostolis 
praecepta bene creduntur, quanquarn scripta non reperiantur ;" lib. 
v. c. 7. 



328 LETTERS ON 

to the writings and traditions of the fathers, — weak, 
uninspired and fallible men, — he can have no assu- 
rance that he will be preserved from error, any farther 
than he follows what is contained in the former, and, 
for aught that he knows, may be permitted to fall into 
it, when he follows the latter. Few will deny that it 
would have been a great imperfection in the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, and an unfailing source of error and 
superstition to the ancient Jews, if they could not have 
collected full information from their sacred writings 
respecting the orders of their priesthood, and their 
rites and ceremonies, but had to obtain it in part from 
the traditions of their elders, many of whom lived 
along with the prophets, or at least as near to them as 
the early fathers did to the Apostles. And will any 
one deny that it would be an equal imperfection in the 
New Testament Scriptures, as a rule of discipline, and 
a similar source of error and superstition to the Chris- 
tian Church, if they did not present to her complete 
information respecting the orders in the ministry, and 
her rites and ordinances, without obliging her to have 
recourse to the traditions of the fathers, or to adopt 
any thing which is not sanctioned in their pages, 
though it may have been received universally by the 
ancient Church ? Besides, ninety out of a hundred of 
ordinary Christians are not able to read the writings 
of the fathers, and judge for themselves in regard to 
the ministry, and the rites and ceremonies which ex- 
isted in the early days of the Church. And though 
the learned may be assisted by the testimony of these 
writers in their inquiries into the authenticity and ca- 
nonical authority of the books of Scripture, yet it is 
not in this way, but by the internal and experimental 
evidence for these books, that the former are satisfied 
in regard to their inspiration. But while they are 
satisfied in this way as to that momentous point, there 
is no internal or experimental evidence by which 
they can ascertain whether bishops, as an order of 
ministers, superior to presbyters, have been appoint- 
ed by Christ; and when they see how little they 
preach and labour, that Christ may be formed in the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 329 

hearts of the thousands and hundreds of thousands 
who are committed to their care, many of them are 
led to a very different conclusion. Nor have they any 
such evidence to convince them that the form of the 
cross in baptism, and others of your ceremonies, to 
which I have formerly alluded, were instituted by 
Christ, or appointed by the Apostles ; and consequent- 
ly, if the Scriptures in the?nselves are not a perfect and 
infallible rule of practice and discipline, as well as of 
faith, they are left without the means of forming a 
judgment, on the correctness of which they can rely 
with comfort, respecting the ministry, and rites, and 
ordinances of the Church. 

2dly, The Scriptures represent themselves as a per- 
feet rule, not only of faith but practice, and to affirm 
that any part of Christian duty, or any thing relating 
to the constitution or ordinances of the Christian 
Church, without which our obedience to the will of 
Christ would be defective and incomplete, was omitted 
by the Apostles to be inserted in their writings, and 
must be learned from the fathers, is in direct opposi- 
tion to some of their most express and explicit state- 
ments. " The law of the Lord," says David, " is per- 
fect, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is 
sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the 
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart : the commandment 
of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; (Ps. xix. 
7, 8.) And again he observes, (Ps. cxix. 105,) "Thy 
word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my 
path." And says Paul, in a passage which was 
quoted in the preceding letter, "All Scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works ;" (2 Tim. hi. 16, 17.) 
Nay, we are expressly enjoined not to " add to God's 
word," as a rule of practice ; (Deut. iv. 2, 12, 32 ; Rev. 
xxii. 19;) as would virtually be the case, if we were 
to receive as a supplement to what was delivered by 
the Apostles in their different Epistles, some new com- 



330 LETTERS ON 

mandments, or rites, or ceremonies* which they com- 
municated to the fathers, and which have been handed 
down by tradition. And they may justly claim for 
themselves the high character of a perfect rule of prac- 
tice and discipline ; for while the words of the fathers 
are often weak, and foolish, and blended with error, 
their words "are pure words, as silver tried in a fur- 
nace of earth, seven times purified." They set before 
us a perfect and spotless example in the holy life of 
the blessed Redeemer, and we have only to consider 
how he would have acted in any situation in which 
we happen to be placed, and to walk in his steps. 
And they set before us also the example of the apos- 
tolic Church, perfect at its institution in its ministers 
and ordinances, and call upon us, if we would witness 
similar results to those which it produced, while we 
look up by humble and earnest prayer for the influ- 
ences of the Spirit, to adopt it as our model as to 
preaching, and government, and worship, and disci- 
pline. It does not indeed specify suicide among the 
sins which it forbids, but it commands us in general 
to " do no murder," and consequently warns us against 
self murder. And it does not particularize the sin of 
gambling, but it admonishes us against fraud, and 
every kind of deceit, and enjoins us to " provide things 
honest in the sight of all men." But if it exhibit to 
us a law which is faultless and complete in all its re- 
quirements, an example which is spotless, and distin- 
guished by the highest and most transcendent excel- 
lence, and a pattern of a church which is perfect, at 
least as far as relates to its constitution, and ordinances, 
and discipline ; and if it warns us solemnly against 
adding to its words, it is utterly inconsistent with all 
these statements to tell us that we may learn from the 
writings of the fathers some order in the ministry, or 

* Paul indeed mentions some words of the Redeemer which are not 
contained in the Gospel?, Acts xx. But they do not relate to any new 
commandment; and though we cannot depend on the fathers, we have 
perfect confidence in his statement, because he was an inspired man, 
and was directed by the Spirit to repeat them in the hearing of Luke, 
that they might be recorded in his History. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 331 

some rite or ordinance which was recommended or 
expressly enjoined by the Apostles, though not the 
smallest notice of it is to be met with in their Epistles. 

3dly, There is not a reformer, either of your own 
Church or of any Protestant Church with which I am 
acquainted, who did not hold it to be a fixed and 
fundamental principle, that we ought to admit nothing 
as to the Christian ministry, or the rites, and ordinances, 
and discipline of the Church, which, though supported 
by tradition, was not sanctioned by Scripture. Your 
own Reformers wished to act upon it as far as they 
were permitted, but were unhappily prevented. And 
there was no Church which acted on it so thoroughly 
and effectually as the Church of Scotland, which pro- 
cured for her among many of the foreign Protestant 
Churches the honourable name of the best reformed 
of all the Reformed Churches* 

And, in short, I would remark, that if the general 
adoption by the ancient Church of any order in the 

* I might appeal to many testimonies from the Reformed Churches 
on the Continent, expressing- their respect for the Church of Scotland, 
but I shall quote only the following from the Harmony of Confessions : 
" Est Scoticanae Ecclesiae privilegium rarum prae multis iri quo etiam 
ejus nomen apud exteros fuit celebre, quod circiter annos plus minus 
54. sine schismate nedum haeresi unitatem cum puritate doctrinae 
servaverit et retinuerit. Hujus unitatis adminiculum ex Dei miseri- 
cordia maximum fuit quod paulatim cum doctrina Christi et Aposto- 
lorum disciplina sicut ex verbo Dei praescripta est una fuit recepta, et 
quam proxime fieri potuit secundum earn totum regimen ecclesiasti- 
cum fuit administratum. Hac ratione omnia schismatum atque er- 
rorum semina, quamprimum pullulare aut se exerere visa sunt, in ipsa 
quasi herba et partu sunt suffocata et extirpata, i. e. It has been the 
rare privilege of the Church of Scotland above many other churches, 
for which it is celebrated among strangers, that for about fifty-four 
years it has preserved and retained unity along with purity of doc- 
trine without schism or heresy. It was a great mean of promoting 
this unity through the mercy of God, that along with the doctrine of 
Christ, it embraced also by degrees the discipline or polity of (he Apos- 
tles, as it was prescribed in the word of God, according to which, as 
nearly as possible, their whole ecclesiastical government was adminis- 
tered. In this way all the seeds of schisms and errors, as soon as they 
appeared to spring and vegetate, were choked and rooted out in the 
very blade." Such was the testimony which was then borne not only 
to the doctrine, but the worship and constitution of the Church of 
Scotland, and the superior efficacy of Presbyterian principles for pre- 
venting schism and repressing heresy. 



332 LETTERS ON 

Christian ministry, or rite, or ceremony, prove that it 
must have received the sanction of the Apostles, 
though they neither appointed it, nor mentioned it in 
their writings, it will prove at the same time that all 
those opinions respecting the doctrines of religion, 
however unsound, and all those practices, however 
superstitious, which prevailed generally in the ancient 
Church from the earliest ages, though not referred to 
in their Epistles, must have met with their approba- 
tion. They must have approved in particular of those 
heresies about free will, and those gross and extra- 
vagant notions about the Millennium, with which, 
according to Whitgift and Ernesti, the whole of the 
fathers from Justin Martyr were tainted.* They 
must have approved also of the practice of praying 
for the dead, though none of them seems to have ob- 
served it; and though they represent the state of those 
who are departed, after their present course of trial is 
finished, as immutably fixed, for they tell us that they 
will be judged according to their works, and declare, 
in the parables of the pounds and the talents, that the 
rewards of grace which will be bestowed on the 
righteous will be proportioned to the measure of their 
religious attainments, and to the amount of their ser- 
vices while they were living upon earth. And yet 
these prayers were offered by the early fathers, not 
merely for the dead who were truly pious, but in some 
instances for the unconverted; for the following were 
the terms in which Ambrose prayed for Valentinian, 
who, according to the author of Ancient Christianity, 
died "uninitiated, unregenerate, unjustified, that is, 
unbaptized; solve, igitur, Pater Sancte, munus servo 
tuo." And says Dr. Field, whom you quote as a high 

* "It appears manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus, quoted by 
you," says Chillingworth, Religion of Protestants, Bishop Patrick's 
edition, p. 352, "that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judg- 
ment apostolick tradition, as also it was esteemed (for ought appears 
to the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs of or about 
his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are 
any way recorded, are for it; and Justin Martyr professeth that all 
good and orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that 
did not he reckons amongst heretics." 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 333 

authority when he favours your sentiments, "Epipha- 
nius answers, that though the prayers of the living 
cutte not off the whole punishment of sinne, (from 
the impenitent,) yet some mercie is obtained for sin- 
ners by them, at least/or some mitigation or suspen- 
sion of their punishment, of which opinion, as I have 
showed before, many other were as well as Epipha- 
nius. J ' And even when they were offered for the 
saints, it was not merely to commemorate their vir- 
tues, as some have asserted, or to express only a 
passing wish, as you would insinuate, but according 
to Cyril, in an extract which was given from him in a 
former letter, as "a great assistance to them." And 
they must have approved likewise of prayers to the 
dead, though no such intercessions were ever offered 
by them, as far as appears from their writings, while 
they remained upon earth, and though they must 
have been aware that the saints in the other world, 
unless they were omniscient and omnipresent, could 
not hear them. Nor were these prayers merely apos- 
trophes, as you are desirous to represent them ;* for, 

* " The addresses in the fourth century being rather apostrophes 
to the blessed saints who were at the moment before the minds of 
those who used them, than systematic requests for their intercession." 
Letter from Dr. Pusey to Dr. Jelf, on the Articles treated in Tract 90, 
p. 119. 

Would Dr. Pusey have the goodness to say whether the following 
expressions, used by Ephrem, the Syrian, to the Virgin, are only an 
apostrophe? "Be present with me now and always, O Virgin, Mother 
of God, Mother of Mercy, beneficent and kind. 

"O Virgin, Lady, Mother of God, who didst carry Christ our 
Saviour and Lord in thy womb, I repose in thee all my hope, and I 
trust in thee who art higher than all heavenly powers." 

"Adesto mihi nunc et semper, O Virgo, Dei Genetrix, mater 
misericordiae, benigna et clemens. 

"Virgo, Domina Dei Genetrix, quae Salvatorem Christum et Domi- 
num nostrum in utero portasti, in te spem meam omnem repono, etin 
te confido, quae sublimior es omnibus coelestibus potestatibus." (De 
Sanct Dei Gen. Virgin. M. Laud.) 

Bishop Ridley, immediately before he suffered, seems to have 
imagined that departed saints might pray for the living. "Brother 
Bradford," says he in a letter to that martyr, February, 1555, "so 
long as I shall understand that thou art in thy journey, by God's 
grace, I shall call upon our heavenly Father, for Christ's sake, to see 
thee safely home; and then, good brother, speak you, and pray for the 
remnant that are to suffer for ChrisVs sake, according to that thou shalt 
know more clearly" See his Life by Ridley, p. 572. 



334 LETTERS ON 

as I stated formerly, they applied to them to assist 
them in recovering stolen goods, and to protect them 
at sea, and to deliver them from the licentious, as in 
the case of the nun who prayed to the Virgin to 
rescue her from Cyprian, when before his conversion 
he attempted to seduce her. And so great was the 
confidence which they had in the prayers of departed 
saints, that the following are the terms in which they 
were mentioned by Nazianzen: "I am persuaded," 
says he, in his 19th oration, when speaking of a mar- 
tyr, "that our father's intercession now avails us 
more than his teaching did while present ivith us in 
the body, now that he has got near to God, has shaken 
off the fetters of the body, and freed from the mud of 
earth approaches naked the naked and most pure 
mind." I might extend these observations to other 
superstitious rites and practices which prevailed very 
generally in the early Church, and which neither you 
nor Bishop Russel would be disposed to maintain 
were approved by the Apostles. But if you admit 
that the errors in regard to doctrine, and the supersti- 
tious practices to which I have just now alluded, can- 
not be considered as having obtained their sanction, 
though they prevailed so generally in the early 
Church, you have no right to draw a different con- 
clusion respecting diocesan Episcopacy, or any of the 
rites and ceremonies of your Church, though you 
could prove that they existed from the earliest times, 
and were as generally adopted, unless you could de- 
monstrate at the same time that they are mentioned in 
the Scriptures as having been instituted by the Re- 
deemer, and as possessing the high and authoritative 
sanction of these illustrious ministers of the only King 
and Head of the Church. 

I have only farther to observe, that in rejecting any 
order in the Christian ministry, or any religious rite 
which rests merely on tradition, however early, and 
is not sanctioned by Scripture, we are only following 
the example of the fathers, who acted upon this 
principle, and rejected opinions and religious customs 
which were common in their day, though they rested 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 335 

on traditions -which were asserted to have come down 
from the age of the Apostles, but were not supported 
by Scripture. Eusebius, for instance, gives that very- 
reason for condemning the doctrine which was taught 
by Papias respecting the Millennium, and which was 
adopted as generally by the early fathers, as, accord- 
ing to your statement, even diocesan episcopacy, 
namely, that it rested only on unwritten tradition, 
from the days of John, and had received his appro- 
bation. "Moreover," says he, "the same writer 
alleges something as from unwritten tradition, viz. 
some strange parables and doctrines of our Saviour, 
and some other fabulous things; and amongst the 
rest, he says, that after the resurrection there shall be 
a thousand years, wherein Christ shall reign on earth 
bodily. But he appears to me, through a misunder- 
standing of the Apostle's discourse, to have taken 
what was spoken mysteriously in a different sense 
from the true meaning. For he was of a very weak 
judgment, as appears from his writings. He was, 
notwithstanding, the author of this opinion to most 
of the ecclesiastical writers who succeeded him, for 
Irenaeus and those who favoured his opinion looked 
only to his antiquity."* Irenseus, too, as he is quoted 
by the same historian, says, respecting the controversy 
about the time of keeping Easter, that " this difference 
did not arise first in his age, but long before, in the 
time of their fathers, who, as is probable, being neg- 
ligent in their government, delivered to their posterity 
a custom which had crept in only through simplicity 
and ignorance."! And, says Socrates, the historian, 
"neither the more ancient nor later fathers, who were 
disposed to follow these Jewish rites, had any cause 
to raise so great contention for the keeping of Easter 
and such holy days, the observation of which is 
not enjoined in the Gospel," (I trust that you and 
the rest of the Tractarians, as well as the Scottish 
Episcopalians, will mark this,) "was altogether legal," 
i. e. ceremonial. " They did not consider that after 

* Lib. iii. cap. 39, " K*t xk\a it o su/to?," &c. t Lib. v cap. 24. 



336 LETTERS ON 

the Jewish religion was changed into that of the Chris- 
tians, the strict observation of the law of Moses, and 
the shadows of future things, were entirely abolished, 
which may be thus most surely evinced. For by no 
law of Christ is it granted to Christians to observe 
Jewish customs. Yea, the Apostle expressly forbade 
it, not only setting aside circumcision, but admonishing 
them that about feast days there should be no con- 
tention. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, confirm- 
ing the same declaration, he says, "the priesthood 
being changed, there is also a change of the law." 
After which he adds, when accounting for the ap- 
pointment of such holy days as you observe in your 
Church, without any authority from Scripture, "surely 
the Apostles and Evangelists never imposed a yoke 
upon those that became obedient to the doctrine of 
faith, but Easter and other holy days were left to the 
choice and equity of those who in such days had re- 
ceived the benefits. Wherefore, seeing men love holy 
days because they bring them some respite from their 
labours, different individuals in different places, fol- 
lowing their particular inclinations, according to a 
certain custom, celebrated the memory of our Sa- 
viour's passion. For neither our Saviour nor his 
•Apostles by any law ordained that it should be ob- 
served ; neither did the Gospel nor the Apostles 
threaten us with a mulct, punishment, or curse, as the 
law of Moses was wont to do the Jews."* And yet 

* Lib. v. cap. 22. " It is not," says Bishop Russel in his Sermon, 
p. 40, " the keeping of those fasts and festivals which commemorate 
the great events of our holy religion, that constitutes the real difference 
between Episcopalians and other Christians, for in many parts of the 
Continent they observe the principal festivals and fasts of the Church, 
as regularly as do the Episcopalians among whom we live." But 
even Socrates, as we see, deelares that there is no warrant for such 
festivals in Scripture, nor any law appointing them. And the ances- 
tors of the Continental Protestants condemned them, though, with a 
strange inconsistency, as James the Sixth remarked, even at Geneva 
they retained " Yule and Pasche." "In a National Synod," says 
the author of the Re-examination of the Five Articles of Perth, p. 
208, " holden at Dort, anno 1578, of the Belgick, Almaine and French 
Churches, we have these words : ' Optandum foret nostros sex diebus 
laborare, et diem solum dominie um celebrare.'' Among the articles 
agreed upon and concluded, concerning ecclesiastical policie in the 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 337 

the keeping of Easter on one day was asserted by 
Polycarp and the Eastern Church, as was formerly 
noticed, to be supported by a tradition respecting the 
opinion and practice of the Apostle John ; and the 
keeping of it on a different day, as was done by the 
Romish Church, was supported by a tradition res- 

Palatinat, anno 1602, we have this following-: "Omnes feriae per 
annum et festi dies tollendi e medio. All the festivall dayes through 
the year are to be abolished." Bucer, howbeit, not one of the preci- 
sest reformers, upon Matthew ii. hath these words, as I find him 
cited by Amesius in his Fresh Suit, p. 360, " I would to God that 
every holy day besides the Lord's day were abolished. That zeal 
which brought them first in was without all warrant or example of 
the Scripture, and onely followed naturall reason to drive out the 
holy dayes of the Pagans, as it were to drive out one nail with an- 
other." 

"Farellus and Viret," it is elsewhere remarked, " removed all holy 
dayes out of the Kirk of Geneva, as Calvin testifies, (Epist. 118.) 
The same decree which banished Farellus and Calvin out of Geneva 
brought in other holy dayes. They were all again abrogate except 
the Sabbath day. Howsoever, after came in the keeping of Pasche, 
and the Nativity. Calvin was so far from liking of holy dayes, that 
he was slandered of intention to abolish the Lord's day. Yea, Luther 
himselfe, in his book de Bonis Operibus, set forth anno 1520, wished 
that there were no feast days among Christians but the Lord's day. 
And in his booke to the Nobilitie of Germanie, he saith, Consultum 
esse, &c. it were expedient that all feast days were abrogate, the 
Lord's day only retained. Howsoever forraigne divines in their 
epistles and councils speak sometimes sparingly against holy dayes, 
when their advice was sought of Kirks newly risen out of Popery, 
and greatly distressed ; they never advised a Kirk to resume them 
when they were removed, neither had they leisure to consider nar- 
rowly the corruption of every error that prevailed in their time, the 
work of reformation was so painful to them." 

And the following are the terms in which Bishop Hooper repro- 
bates all such festivals, though neither Cranmer nor he could get 
them abolished in the Church of England. " It is against this com- 
mandment," (the fourth,) says he, " to kepe or dedicate ony fast to 
ony sainct, of what holinis soever he be. Therefore saith the law, 
ye shall celebrate the fest unto the Lord ; Exod. xxiii. This honor 
6huld be gyven only unto God. In the Old. Testament was no fest 
ever dedicated to ony sainct, neither in the New. It happened after 
the deth of the Apostelles, as it is written in Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 
iv. cap. 15, and better nuctorite have they not that be the auctors of 
these holy dayes, the which the Consel of Lugd. hath geven us. They 
have not above two hundred and seventy three yers in aige, and is 
the levyn of the Pope" Such is the Bishop's account of the origin of 
Bishop Russel's holy days, for which he praises the Church of Eng- 
land and the Scottish Episcopalians. Declaration of the Ten Holy 
Commandments, p. 115. 

22 



338 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

pectin g the opinion and practice of Peter and Paul, 
handed down from the time of these Apostles. But 
if the fathers themselves, for whom you profess such 
deference, rejected opinions and religious rites which 
rested merely on unwritten traditions, however early, 
and however general, but which were not sanctioned 
by Scripture, we are only following the example 
which they have set us, when we reject the claims 
of diocesan Episcopacy, and all your rites, even 
though you should be able to show that they existed 
generally in the Christian Church from the earliest 
ages, and were recommended by traditions extending 
backwards to the very days of the Apostles, unless 
you can prove that they are recommended or ap- 
pointed in the Word of God.* 
I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* Even Cyprian uses the following language respecting a tradition, 
of which he disapproved : " Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne de 
dominica et evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum" 
mandatis atque Epistolis veniens?" Epist. 74, ad Pompon, p. 192. 
And says Whitaker of the whole of the early fathers, (and he was 
one of the most learned and distinguished theologians that ever filled 
the high situation of Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam- 
bridge,) " We may warrantably reject all human testimonies, and 
insist upon some clear Scripture testimony. For this is the constant 
sense of all the Catholic fathers, that nothing is to be received or 
approved in religion which is not supported by the testimony of 
Scripture, and which cannot be proved and confirmed out of these 
sacred writings. And very deservedly, since the Scripture is an abso- 
lute and sufficient rule of truth." Treatise against Bellarmine, Con- 
trov. ii. quaest. 5, cap. 6. p. 506. 



339 



LETTER XXI. 

If the reasoning employed in the two preceding letters be well founded, it 
will not follow that diocesan Episcopacy received the approbation of the 
Apostles, though it could be proved that it existed in the age next to the 
apostolic, unless it could be demonstrated that they had expressed their 
approbation of it in their writings; — but it cannot be proved that it ex- 
isted in that early age. — The mere catalogues of bishops, to which Epis- 
copalians appeal, will not establish this, unless they can show that these 
bishops had the same powers which belong exclusively to their prelates. — 
This, however, they have never yet done ; and Jerome declares, that even 
toward the end of the fourth century the power of ordination alone dis- 
tinguished a bishop from a presbyter. — In his Commentary on Titus, and 
his Epistle to Evagrius, he represents bishops and presbyters as the same, 
not only in name, but in authority, and diocesan Episcopacy as a mere 
human institution, introduced by the Church to prevent schism. — He de- 
scribes it further as adopted by degrees, as divisions arose in different 
Churches or nations, by a decree of each of the Churches, and not of any 
general council, and as having commenced, not at the time of the schism 
in the Church of Corinth, referred to by Paul in his first Epistle to that 
Church, but after the writing of the third Epistle of John, and the death 
of the Apostles. — This represented as the opinion of Jerome, as stated in 
his writings, by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and the most eminent foreign 
Reformers, by the Wirtemburg Confession and the Articles of Smalkald, 
and by Jewel, Willet, Whitaker, and many other learned and distinguish- 
ed divines of the Church of England. 

Reverend Sir, — I have endeavoured to show, in the 
preceding letter, that though you could succeed in 
proving diocesan Episcopacy to have existed in the 
Church in the very age next to the Apostles, and that 
it had been regarded subsequently as an apostolic 
institution, we would be justified in refusing to it that 
high character, unless it could be demonstrated that it 
was sanctioned by Scripture. And I have attempted 
to prove that it has no such sanction, presbyters being 
the highest order of office-bearers among the standing 
ministers of the Christian Church, who are represented 
as bishops, and no one being ever called by that name 
who was a diocesan bishop. Nay, not only are pres- 
byters denominated bishops, and the same qualifica- 
tions required from them that are necessary in bishops, 
but, as the celebrated Armacanus remarks, when Paul 
enumerates the different orders, he mentions no middle 
order between the presbyter-bishop and the deacon. 
" It is evident," says he, after quoting the words of 
the Apostle to Timothy about bishops and deacons in 



340 LETTERS ON 

his first Epistle, that " between the episcopal," or pres- 
byter episcopal " order, and that of the deacon, there is 
no middle order, since if there were any, we cannot 
doubt that that illustrious Doctor, who, as he tells the 
Galatians, ch. i., received his Gospel from Christ him- 
self, would have instructed his beloved disciple Timo- 
thy respecting it, and would have given him rules in 
regard to it, as he gave him respecting the higher and 
lower orders,"* Such an omission is altogether inex- 
plicable, on the supposition that presbyters, who are 
represented as bishops, were inferior to them, and 
were to constitute only a middle order. And if you 
can account for it, and for the want of the slightest 
notice of the qualifications which are required in such 
bishops, that those who aspire to that high office may 
know whether they are fit for it, and those to whom 
they apply for ordination may know whether they 
ought to grant it, you will have the honour of per- 
forming what has never yet been accomplished by any 
of the former defenders of Episcopacy, from the time 
of Epiphanius till the present day. 

I am aware that the present curate of Derry, one of 
the most zealous though not the most intelligent and 
judicious advocates of your ecclesiastical polity, ob- 
jects to our reasoning, when we infer the equality, if 
not the perfect identity, of presbyters and bishops; 
because presbyters are distinguished by the name of 
bishops, just as we infer the equality of the Son to the 
Father in the ever-blessed Godhead, because the 
highest names characteristic of divinity which are 
bestowed on the first are applied to the second person 
in the Trinity. "The man," says he, ie who would 
rest his cause (the proof of the divinity of the Son) 
upon it," t. e. the application to him of these names, 
" would be subjected to a logical defeat, for he would 

* * 4 Constat quod inter ordinem episcopalem et inter ordinem dia- 
conatus non est ordo medius, quoniam si quis esset, non dubiura, 
quin iste Doctor maximus, qui suum Evangelium reccpit a Christo, 
ut ipse scribit ad Gal. i., suum dilectum discipulum Timotheum de 
isto ordine instruxisset, et ei regulam dedisset, sieut de superiori et 
inferiori regulas dedit." Ric. Armacan. lib. ii. quaest. Armen. cap. 
v. fol. 84. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 341 

be at once open to the reply, that if Christ be God, 
because, he is called God, magistrates and princes are, 
for a similar reason, gods; that if Christ be God, 
because styled God, Baal and Ashtaroth are, for a 
similar reason, gods."* Now, I would ask this writer, 
who is equally rash in his remarks on some of the 
leading doctrines of theology, as in some of his argu- 
ments in defence of Episcopacy, where he finds the 
highest names which are applied to the Supreme and 
Eternal God given to angels, or magistrates and prin- 
ces, or to Baal and Ashtaroth? Any of them may be 
called #fo? but I challenge him to produce a single 
passage where he is called o 0*0$, a name which even 
Socinians and Arians admit is peculiar to the Supreme 
God. And yet that name is bestowed on the blessed 
Redeemer by God the Father, (Hebrews i. 8,) by the 
Apostle Paul, (Romans ix. 5.) and by the Apostle 
Thomas, (John xx. 28,) as well as in other passages. 
And any of them may be distinguished by other 
inferior names, which are applied occasionally to the 
persons in the Godhead. But I call upon him to point 
out a single passage where they are called Jehovah, 
that incommunicable name, which is represented by 
the Psalmist as peculiar to him who is " the most high 
over ail the earth," (Ps. lxxxiii. 18,) or, as it is ex- 
pressed by Dr. Waterland, who, in his masterly wri- 
tings on the divinity of the Saviour, will be acknow- 
ledged by most to have thought as closely and argued 
as ably as the curate of Derry, "which is a word of 
absolute signification, and is the incommunicable name 
of the one true God."t And yet we know that that 
name is given to the Redeemer by God the Father, 
(compare Ps. cii. 12, 26, with Hebrews i. 8, 10, 12,) 
and by the Apostle John, (compare Isaiah vi. 1-3, 10, 
with John xii. 37, 39, 41,) as well as in other pas- 
sages. The argument, therefore, for the supreme and 
eternal divinity of the Son, from his being represented 
by these names, is perfectly conclusive ; and if we are 

* See his Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 24. 

t Defence of some Queries relating to Dr. Clark's Scheme of the 
Trinity, p. 57. 



342 LETTERS ON 

right in inferring, in opposition to Mr. Boyd, his 
equality to the Father from his receiving these names, 
as was maintained by Bishop Bull, Dr. Waterland, 
and Bishop Horsley, we are justified in inferring the 
equality of presbyters to scriptural bishops, because 
they are represented as bishops. And as no other 
bishops, or standing ministers, under any other name, 
are mentioned in the New Testament, we are war- 
ranted further in drawing the conclusion, that, as far 
as is revealed in the sacred volume, they are the 
highest order of Christian ministers appointed by 
the Redeemer, and the only bishops. 

You will tell me, however, that diocesan bishops 
existed universally in the Christian Church from the 
earliest ages, and that for fifteen hundred years Epis- 
copacy was regarded as an apostolic institution. Such 
I am sensible was the statement of Bancroft, Chilling- 
worth, and Leslie, in former times; and such is the 
statement which has been made recently in almost 
every page of the Oxford Tracts, and in terms of the 
boldest and most confident assertion, as if it did not 
admit of a single doubt, or of the smallest contradic- 
tion. I propose, accordingly, in concluding these let- 
ters, to inquire into the fact; while, if it should even 
correspond to the statement, since the Apostles them- 
selves have never told us that they sanctioned it, I 
would object to the inference, that diocesan Epis- 
copacy was a divine institution. 

Now, in examining this statement, I beg to premise, 
that it will not be enough to convince me of its accu- 
racy, though you should bring forward lists of different 
individuals in after times denominated bishops, who 
occupied the Sees in the various quarters of the Chris- 
tian Church from the very age which was next to the 
Apostles till the present day. It will not satisfy me 
that they were diocesan bishops, to tell me merely 
that they had the names of bishops; but I must have 
more precise, and distinct, and full information from 
unexceptionable witnesses as to the extent of their 
powers, and must see that they were the same as to 
ecclesiastical matters which are possessed by your 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 343 

bishops, and which are exercised by the prelates 
among the Scottish Episcopalians. I must see that 
they were not merely the moderators or chairmen of 
the councils of presbyters in the different churches, 
who were only the primi inter pares, the first among 
equals, chosen annually like the A^xovts? Eytcovv,uoc at 
Athens, each of whom was denominated in his turn 
the Archon for the year, and presided over the rest ; 
which, according to some, as was formerly mentioned, 
is the only principle on which you can explain the 
apparently contradictory accounts given by the fathers 
of the order of succession among the first four bishops 
of the Church of Rome. And I must see that even 
afterwards, when a change was introduced, they were 
not merely standing moderators with the name of 
bishops, because they summoned when they thought 
fit the councils of the presbyters to meet and delibe- 
rate about the affairs of the Church, and possessing 
only the powers of the annual moderators. All this 
must be ascertained ; and it must be proved that the 
authority committed to the bishops was far more ex- 
tensive than was vested in these moderators with the 
designation of bishops, and was equal to that which 
has been conferred upon your prelates, before the ar- 
gument, brought from the lists of bishops in the dif- 
ferent Churches, can have the smallest weight to con- 
vince me of the fact asserted in your statement, and 
that of other Episcopalians, namely, that diocesan 
Episcopacy existed universally in the Christian Church 
from the earliest ages. Now, I request to know, 
whether you or Mr. Boyd can give me this informa- 
tion? He has furnished the names of the bishops of 
two of the Asiatic Churches,* and said very properly, 
that " it was surely unnecessary to pursue that line of 
proof any further;" and as he produced nothing more 
as a proof, it was unquestionably right that he should 
stop. Will he have the goodness to accompany it in 
the next edition, or in some future publication, with a 
well-attested account of the extent of the powers 
which were entrusted to these ministers? 

* Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 114-117. 



344 LETTERS OX 

I feel it to be the more necessary to obtain this in- 
formation, because it was common with the fathers, 
as was proved formerly in one of these letters, to re- 
present the Apostles as the bishops of Churches in 
which they had laboured for a time, though they sus- 
tained a much higher and more important character, 
and to ascribe to their successors the very same 
powers which were exercised by these distinguished 
early ministers ; and the same language is used in the 
fourth and fifth centuries respecting Timothy, and 
Titus, and others of the Evangelists. It is plain, 
however, that any list of bishops in one of these 
Churches which begins either with an Apostle or an 
Evangelist, commences with an error, and is conse- 
quently vitiated; for being a minister of a greatly 
superior order, he could not sink into a bishop. And 
as his name ought never to have been placed on the 
list of these ordinary ministers, so it is not enough to 
present to me a catalogue of those who succeeded 
him, but you must furnish me with a distinct and 
well-authenticated account of the extent of their 
powers; and you are not to take for granted, that 
because they were bishops, they were invested with 
the same amount of spiritual authority over other 
ministers which he could exercise in virtue of his 
high and extraordinary office, while he was engaged 
in founding and organizing these Churches. Besides, 
Bishop Burnet admits that " the names of bishop and 
presbyter are not only used for the same thing in 
Scripture, but are also used promiscuously by the 
writers of the two first centuries."* And it is evi- 
dent from the writings of Irenaeus, and of others of 
the fathers, that his observation is just, and that 
Bishop Russel is mistaken when he affirms,! that 
"immediately after the demise of the Apostles, the 
term Bishop was applied (appropriated) to their suc- 
cessors in the government of the Church/' or diocesan 
prelates. So far was this from being the case that 
Irenaeus represents presbyters as preserving the very 
succession from the Apostles in the episcopate, and as 

* Conference, p. 310. t Sermon, p. 30. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 345 

the bishops whom it was foretold by the prophets 
that God would give to the Church. "Wherefore/' 
says he, in his Fourth Book against Heresies, c. 43, 
"we ought to hear those presbyters who are in the 
Church, who have the succession from the Apostles, 
and who, with the succession of the episcopate, have 
received the gift of the truth according to the plea- 
sure of the Father."* And he says, in the following 
chapter, " Such presbyters the Church nourishes, of 
whom also the prophet says, I will give thee thy 
princes or rulers in peace, and thy bishops in right- 
eousness.! But if presbyters were the ministers who 
preserved the succession in the episcopate from the 
Apostles to the days of Irenaeus, and who were then 
considered as the bishops whom God had promised 
to give to the Church, how is this consistent with 
their being no longer bishops, nor the bishops pre- 
dicted by the prophets, and subordinate to a higher 
order of ministers, who long before that time had be- 
come the only bishops ? And, in short, it is indispen- 
sable that you should furnish. us with this information 
about the powers of the bishops, whose names are in 
the lists of the early Churches, that Ave may see 
whether they were really distinct from presbyters, 
and if so, how far they were superior ; for it would 
appear from what is mentioned by Jerome, that even 
in the fourth century they were greatly inferior, in 
respect to their authority, not only to your prelates, 
but even to those of the Scottish Episcopalians. 
Your bishops possess the exclusive power of ad- 
ministering confirmation, exercising jurisdiction, and 
conferring orders, but it was not so with the bishops, 
nearly three hundred years after the death of the 
Apostles ; for, says that father, and he was not con- 
tradicted by Epiphanius, or any of his contempo- 
raries,) " what does a bishop perform, (ordination 

* "Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt presbyteris obaudire c-por- 
tet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui 
cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum 
placitum Patris acccpcrunt." 

+ "Tales presbyteros nutrit ecclesia, de quibus et propheta ait, Et 
dabo principes tuos in pace, et episcopos tuos in justitia." 



346 LETTERS ON 

excepted,) which a presbyter cannot do ?"* But if 
the bishops who lived at such a distance from the 
Apostles were distinguished from presbyters only as 
to the power of ordination, and not as to the powers 
of confirmation or jurisdiction, which are possessed 
exclusively as well as the former by modern bishops, 
it presents a very strong additional reason why, along 
with the names in the list of bishops in the second 
century, you should furnish us with an exact account 
of their powers, that we may see whether at that 
time they differed from presbyters even as to the 
power of ordination, which, in the days of Jerome, 
appears to have been their only peculiar privilege. 

Jerome, however, who is acknowledged univer- 
sally to have been the most learned of the Latin 
fathers, and whose veracity, I believe, has never been 
questioned, makes another statement of far greater 
importance respecting diocesan Episcopacy, namely, 
that even in the comparatively limited form in which 
it existed in his time, it was not appointed by Christ, 
nor sanctioned by the Apostles; and while he repre- 
sents it as a mere human institution, mentions the 
circumstances which led to its introduction. But as 
I write only to ascertain what is truth, and not for 
victory, and as I would be sorry to impute to him a 
single sentiment which he did not really hold, or to 
deduce from his words a single inference in favour of 
my principles which they do not fairly warrant, I take 
the liberty to select from his writings the following 
passages : 

" Let us attend carefully," says he in his Commen- 
tary on Titus, "to the words of the Apostle, (Titus, 
i. 5,) that thou shouldst ordain presbyters in every 
city, as I have appointed thee. Pointing out after- 
wards what sort of presbyters should be ordained, he 
says, if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, 
&c; after which he adds, for a bishop must be blame- 
less, as the steward of God. A presbyter, therefore, 
is the same as a bishop ; and before, through the in- 

* " Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus quod presbyter 
non faciat?" 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 347 

stigation of the devil, there were different parties in 
religion, and it was said among different people (or 
states,) X am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, 
the Churches were governed by the common council 
of presbyters. But afterwards, when every one 
thought that those whom he had baptized belonged 
to himself, and not to Christ, it was determined 
throughout the whole world, that one chosen from 
the presbyters should be placed over the rest, to whom 
the care of the whole Church should belong, and the 
seeds of schisms should be taken away. 

" If any one should think that this is merely my 
opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let 
him read again the words of the Apostles to the Phi- 
lippians, * Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus 
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at 
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you 
and peace/ &c. Philippi is a single city of Mace- 
donia; and certainly in one city there could not be 
several bishops, as they are now denominated, or of 
the kind that now exist. But because at that time 
they called the same persons bishops who were pres- 
byters, he has spoken indifferently of bishops as of 
presbyters. 

" If this should still appear doubtful to any one, un- 
less it be confirmed by another testimony, it is written 
in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the Apostle had 
come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the 
presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards 
he said among other things, Take heed to yourselves, 
and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath 
placed you bishops, to feed the Church of God, which 
he has purchased with his blood. Observe carefully, 
that when calling the presbyters of that one city Ephe- 
sus, he afterwards denominated the same perso?is 
bishops. If any one is willing to receive that Epistle 
to the Hebrews, which is ascribed to Paul, there also 
the care of the Church is divided among a plurality of 
rulers ; for says he, Obey them who have the rule over 
you, and be subject to them, for they watch for your 
souls, as those who must give an account, &c. And 



348 LETTERS ON 

the Apostle Peter, who received his name from the 
firmness of his faith, speaks in the same way in his 
Epistle, saying, the presbyters who are among yon, I 
beseech, who am your fellow presbyter, and a witness 
of the sufferings of Christ, &c. The object for which 
we state these things, is to show that among the an- 
cients, presbyters and bishops were the same ; but 
that by little and little, that the plants of dissensions 
might be plucked up, the whole care of the Church 
was committed to one. As the presbyters, therefore, 
know that they are subject by the custom of the 
Church to him who is placed over them, so let bishops 
know that they are greater than presbyters, more by 
custom than by any real appointment of the Lord ; 
and that they ought to govern the Church along with 
the presbyters, imitating Moses, who, when he alone 
was to preside over the people of Israel, chose seventy, 
with whom he might judge the people."* 

Again, he says in his Epistle to Evagrius, " I hear 
that a certain individual has discovered such madness, 
as to place deacons above presbyters, that is, bishops; 
for when the Apostle plainly teaches that presbyters 
are the same persons who are also bishops, who can 
endure that a minister who waits only on the tables of 
the poor, and widows, should in his pride exalt him- 
self above those at whose prayers the body and blood 
of Christ are made ? Hear a testimony in proof of 
this." After which he quotes the different passages 
referred to in his Commentary on Titus, and then adds, 
" Do these testimonies of such men appear to you of 
little weight ? Let the evangelical trumpet sound in 
your ears, the son of thunder whom Jesus loved, who 
drank copiously the streams of doctrine from the breast 
of the Saviour. The Presbyter to the elect Lady and 
her children, whom I love in the truth ; and in another 
Epistle, The Presbyter to the well beloved Gaius, 
whom I love in the truth. And that one was after- 
wards chosen, who was placed (or presided over, 

* " Diligenter Apostoli verba attendamus dicentis, ut constituas 
per civitates presbyteros sicut ego tibi disposui qui qualis presbyter 
debeat ordinari," &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 349 

praeponeretur,) the rest, was a remedy which was 
adopted against schism, lest every one drawing the 
Church to his party should break it in pieces. For 
also at Alexandria, from Mark, the Evangelist, to the 
Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, (or, according to 
Blonde!,* till a. d. 246,) "the presbyters always named 
as bishop one chosen from among themselves, and 
placed him in a higher degree, in the same manner as 
if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons 
should choose from among themselves an industrious 
man, and call him Archdeacon." After which he re- 
marks respecting the terms, presbyters and bishops, 
which he had said were applied to the same persons, 
that " the one was a name expressive of age, the other 
of dignity ; whence, when directions are delivered to 
Titus and Timothy about the ordination of the bishop 
and the deacon, the Apostle is entirely silent about 
presbyters, because the presbyter is comprehended in 
the bishop. "t Now, upon the account which is given 
in these passages of the rise of Episcopacy by this 
early father, who lived so near to the Apostles, and of 
whom Augustine says, that "no man knew any thing 
which was unknown to Jerome," and Erasmus testi- 
fies that he was " without controversy the most learn- 
ed of all Christians, and the prince of divines," I would 
make the following observations : 

In the first place, it is a gratuitous and unworthy 
insinuation of Mr. Boyd, for which he has not pro- 
duced a particle of evidence, that Jerome was induced 
to deliver this statement, because " his expectations in 
life were disappointed, and that disappointment vent- 
ed itself in the acerbities which mark his writings ; or 
that there was that in the haughtiness or the worldli- 
ness of the bishops of his time which excited his dis- 
pleasure. "J No such acerbities appear in these 
passages, but they express his calm and deliberate 
opinion as to the origin of Episcopacy ; and if, under 

* Apologia pro Sententia Hieronymi, p. 7. 

t " Audio qucndarn in tantam erupisse vaecordiam ut diaconos pres- 
byleris, id est, Episcopis anteferret," &,c. 
X Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 123, 



350 LETTERS ON 

the influence of these feelings, he could deliver a tes- 
timony respecting a matter of such moment, which he 
knew to be false, so far from being worthy of being 
represented by Bishop Hurd as " the most esteemed, 
as well as the ablest of the fathers/' he would be de- 
serving of contempt. 

2dly, It was the general opinion, not only of the 
most eminent individuals who laboured for the spirit- 
ual improvement of the Church before the Reforma- 
tion, but of the leading Protestants at that memorable 
period, and for ages afterwards, that the doctrine taught 
in these passages, is, that bishops are not superior to 
presbyters by divine appointment, and that the eleva- 
tion of the former above the latter is a device of men, 
and not an institution of God. I may refer in proof 
of this to Laurentius Valla, a noble Roman, and dis- 
tinguished divine, who, according to Dr. Cave, flourish- 
ed a. d. 1440, who, in his Commentary on Acts xv. 
after quoting Acts xx. 28, says, " As to this, that the 
same persons were presbyters who are here said to be 
bishops, I need not employ many words, since it is 
proved by Jerome on Titus."* It was the view of 
their meaning taken by Luther, who says in his Dis- 
putation at Leipsic, (torn. i. of his works,) " that Jerome 
makes bishops equal among themselves, and presby- 
ters equal to bishops, and that any inequality which 
took place afterwards arose from custom and expedi- 
ency."! It was the view of their meaning which was 
entertained by Melancthon, for, says he, " Jerome 
plainly testifies that a bishop and a presbyter are not 
different grades" or orders "by divine right;" X by Cal- 
vin, who, after remarking that diocesan Episcopacy 
"was an arrangement introduced by human agree- 
ment," adds, " Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus, 

* "De hoc quod iidem fuerunt presbyteri qui episcopi, non est pluri- 
bus agendum, quod ab Hierony mo super Epistola ad Titum probatur." 

t "Hieronymus non modo episcopos aequat inter se, sed et presby- 
teros episcopis comparat. Patet itaque re ipsa aequales episcopos inter 
se et presbyteros, solo usu et ecclesiae causa, alium alii praeferendum." 

t Tract, de Ordme,tom. ii. Oper. p. 867. " Imo Hieronymus aperte 
testatur, non esse jure divino diversos gradus episcopum et presby- 
terum." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 351 

says, a presbyter is the same as a bishop;" by Bullin- 
ger, (Decad. 3, Sermo 3); by Zanchius on the Fourth 
Commandment; by Danaeus, (in Augustini de Haeres., 
Haer. 53); Chemnitz, (Examen Concil. Trident. Pars 
2, de Sacrament, ord.); Junius, (Controv.5 lib. l,cap. 
15,) and many others. Nay, it was the view taken 
of them in all the Confessions of the Churches of the 
Reformation. Thus the Wirtemburgh Confession, in 
the chapter on Order, says, " Jerome teaches that a 
bishop and presbyter are the same."* And you can- 
not fail to recollect, that in the quotations which were 
produced from the Articles of Smalkald, in a former 
letter, and which were subscribed by so many thou- 
sands of the foreign Reformers, the very same view is 
given of their import. " Jerome," say they, " teaches 
that there is no difference between bishops and pres- 
byters, but that all pastors are also bishops. And he 
alleges that text of Paul, (Titus i. 5,) ' Therefore left 
I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain presbyters 
in every city."t And again, " Here Jerome teaches 
that the different degrees of bishops and presbyters 
were established solely by human authority ; and this 
is evident from the thing itself, for the office and the 
directions respecting those who are to be appointed to 
it are the same."! Nay, such was the view which 
was entertained of their meaning by many of the most 
learned and able divines of your own Church. I shall 
prove immediately that it was held by Dr. Whitaker, 
who replies triumphantly to the very same objections 
against this interpretation of these passages, when 
urged by Bishop Russel, the curate of Deny, and other 
modern Episcopalians, when they were adduced for- 
merly by Sanders the Papist, a most zealous defender 

* " Docet autem Hieronymus eundem esse et presbyterum." 
t " Ideoque Hieronymus Claris verbis inquit inter episcopos et pres- 
byteros non esse discrimen, sed omnes pastores et episcopos esse. Et 
allegat textum Pauli, Tit. i.," &c. 

X " Hie docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus episcoporum et presby- 
terorum si ve pastor um tantum kumana authoritate constitutos esse; 
idque res ipsa loquitur, quia officium et mandatum plane idem est. 
Quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter episcopum et pas- 
torem, non est dubium, ordinationem ideo eorum ministrorum a pas- 
tore in ecclesia sua factum, jure divino ratam et probatam esse." 



352 LETTERS ON 

of the exclusive claims and divine institution of dio- 
cesan Episcopacy. And I apprehend that it is plain 
from the following quotation from the Synopsis of 
Willet, that a similar view of the meaning of Jerome 
was adopted by himself, and by Jewel and Whitgift. 
" Amongst the rest," says he, " S. Hierome thus wri- 
teth: Apostolum perspicue docere, &c. The Apostle 
teacheth evidently that bishops and priests ivere the 
same: yet he holdeth this distinction to be necessary 
for the government of the Church, Quod unus postea 
electus, est, &c. That one afterwards was chosen to 
be set over the rest, it was done to bee a remedie 
against schisme. To this opinion of S. Jerome sub- 
scribed! Bishop Jewel in the place before quoted,* 

* The testimony of Willet, whose book, as I showed, was approved 
by the bishops, establishes the accuracy of the statement which was 
given in a former letter of the sentiments of Jewel respecting the 
origin of Episcopacy, which he regarded, (as was proved) only as a 
human institution, and furnishes an answer to what is urged to the 
contrary by Mr. Boyd, (Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 51.) — "I 
reply," says the latter writer, " in the Jirst place, by saying, that these" 
(they had been quoted by the authors of the Plea for Presbytery, and 
are the same nearly as I have referred to) "are not Jewel's words. 
They are part of a quotation taken from St. Jerome, and given in the 
quotation imputed to Jewel, as any person who has read even the first 
clause of that father's epistle to Evangelus (Evagrius!) could not have 
failed of knowing." Willet was aware of this as well as Mr. Boyd; 
and yet he affirms, from the manner in which Jewel not only quotes, 
but applies the words of Jerome, that he was of the same opinion with 
that father. And certainly the writer who quotes with approbation 
the words of another must be considered as adopting them. I pre- 
sume Mr. Boyd does this, when he quotes in this way the authors to 
whom he appeals in different parts of his work. " In the second 
place, all that Jewel says is, that it is no heresy to say, that by the 
Scriptures of God, bishops and priests are all one. And does this 
prove the Bishop of Salisbury an advocate for Presbytery?" No, cer- 
tainly; for Jewel, like Jerome, thought that Episcopacy might be 
adopted on the principle of expediency, though not as a divine insti- 
tution. And he admits, like Jerome, not as Mr. Boyd would insinu- 
ate, that a bishop and a Presbyter are represented in Scripture as all 
one, because they belong to one order, — the one occupying its higher 
grade, and the other its lower, — but as one in degree as well as order, 
or, as he expresses it in another passage, which he quotes with appro- 
bation from Jerome, one thing ; and this is farther confirmed by his 
representing them as at first ruling the Church with equal power. 
•' Againe," he observes, (Defense ol the Apologie, p. 100,) "Jerome 
saith, therefore a priest and a bishop are one thing ; and before that 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 353 

and another most reverend prelate of our Church, 
(Whitgift,) in these words: "I know these names be 
confounded in the Scriptures, but I speak according 

by the inflaming of the divell parts were taken in religion, and these 
words were uttered among the people, I hold of Paul, &c, the 
Churches were governed of the common advice of the priests." Be- 
sides, when Harding, as Jewel informs us, p. 196, affirmed, that "they 
which denied the distinction of a bishop and a priest were condemned 
of heresie," and appealed in proof of it to the condemnation of the 
sentiments of Arius by Epiphanius, lib. iii. cap. 75, he charged them 
with denying any distinction between them to the same extent to 
which it was denied by Arius. Now, we know that- Arius denied 
any distinction between them, not only as to order, but as to degree. 
And Jewel observes, on the margin, with regard to Harding's charge, 
that " this was an untruth, for hereby both S. Paul and S. Hierome, 
and other good men, are condemned of heresie ;" plainly showing that 
he considered them as teaching that, by divine appointment, bishops 
and presbyters are not only of one order, but of the same degree. As 
to the two quotations from the Defense, and the passage produced by 
Mr. Boyd from the Apology, where Jewel says, " We believe that in 
the Church there are various orders of ministers, some deacons, others 
priests, others bishops, to whom the instruction of the people, and the 
care and administration of religion, is intrusted," it contains no con- 
tradiction to the statement, that, like Jerome, he considered bishops 
and presbyters the same as to order and degree by divine right, for 
he thought also, like him, that it was agreeable to Scripture to adopt 
a superior order to presbyters on the principle of expediency. And as 
he acknowledges, in another part of the Apology, that they had re- 
tained some rites which were not instituted by God, they might be 
disposed to retain diocesan bishops though not appointed by him. 
And as to the other passage of the Apology referred to by Mr. Boyd, 
where Jewel says, "We have approached, as much as possibly we 
could, the Church of the Apostles, and ancient Catholic bishops and 
fathers," it is evident from the following sentence, which Mr. Boyd 
ought to have quoted, but which he has taken care to suppress, that 
the bishop is speaking only of their approaching that Church in re- 
gard to doctrine and worship, and never alludes to the orders among 
the clergy. So much for Mr. Boyd's allegation of frauds practised 
against Bishop Jewel. 

I may add, that the celebrated Dr. Reynolds, of whom Bishop Hall 
said, that " his memory and reading were near a miracle," and Crack- 
enthorp, that " to name him was to commend virtue itself," confirms 
this view of the sentiments of Jewel, in opposition to Mr. Boyd; for, 
says he, in his letter to Sir Francis Knollys, " which untruth, (that 
Augustine charged Arius with heresy, for asserting that, according to 
Scripture, bishops and presbyters are the same,) it may appeare by 
this, that our learned countryman, of good memory, Bishop Jewel, 
(Defense of the Apology, part 2, cap. 9, divis. 1, p. 198,) when Hard- 
ing, to convince the same opinion of heresie, alleadged the same wit- 
nesses, he cyting to the contrary Chrysostome, Jerome, &c, knit up 
his answer with these words : All these and other moe holy fathers, 
23 



354 LETTERS ON 

to the manner and custome of the Church ever since 
the Apostles' time;" Defens. Answer. Admonit. p. 
383.'* But if such was the view of the meaning of 
these passages which was adopted by these eminent 
and venerable individuals, some of whom continued 
to adhere to Episcopacy on the ground of expediency, 
though not of divine right, does it not furnish a strong 
presumptive argument, whether you reflect on their 
number, or learning, or piety, that it must be the true 
interpretation; and if this be really the case, and if 
the testimony of Jerome respecting the origin of pre- 
lacy, and the time when it was introduced, be worthy 
of credit, does it not subvert completely all its claims 
to the character, which so many of its injudicious 
friends are so anxious to claim for it, of an apostolic 
institution? 

As it is still, however, possible, though not very 
probable, that this interpretation may be wrong, and 
as we ought to judge for ourselves, I shall examine 
very shortly the leading statements contained in these 
quotations, and the principal objections which were 
urged against it formerly by some Popish controver- 
sialists, when they advocated the cause of diocesan 
Episcopacy, and which have been repeated of late 
by some of its defenders among Protestant Episco- 
palians. 

Now, upon looking into these passages, I, appre- 
hend, that it will appear to an impartial reader, who 
has no theory to establish, that the following points, 
bearing very strongly on the question about Episco- 
pacy, are asserted by Jerome, who, according to Bing- 
ham, " may be allowed," on many subjects, " to speak 
the sense of the ancients." 

together with the Apostle S. Paul, for thus saying-, by Harding's 
advice must be held for heretikes." And Hooker, in his Ecclesiasti- 
cal Polity, book vii. p. 3 ( J5, when speaking of those who believed that 
"the Apostles did neither by word or deed appoint z'J," (diocesan Epis- 
copacy,) mentions among them, on the margin, Jewel, in his Defens. 
Apol. part 2, cap. 9 ; and Dr. Fulk, in his Answer to the Rhemish. 
version of the Testament, Tit. i. 5. Surely Dr. Reynolds and Hooker 
will satisfy Mr. Boyd and his friends on this point. 
* Page 273. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 355 

1st, That bishops do not belong to a different order 
from presbyters by divine right, or even to a higher 
grade in the same order; "because the Apostle, when 
pointing out what kind of presbyter ought to be or- 
dained, says, that a bishop ought to be blameless, 
plainly showing that a presbyter is the same with a 
bishop, (idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus:") 
that " it was not merely his private opinion, but the 
doctrine of Scripture, that a bishop and a presbyter 
are one, (episcopum et presbyterum unumesse ;) that 
the same persons who are called presbyters are after- 
wards denominated bishops, (presbyteros vocans 
postea eosdem episcopos dixerit;) and that Paul, when 
writing about the ordination of bishops and deacons, 
is entirely silent about presbyters, because they are 
comprehended under bishops, (de presbyteris omnino 
reticetur, quia in episcopo. et presbyter continetur.") 
It is evident, therefore, that in his opinion bishops had 
in no respect any superiority to presbyters by divine 
right, and that not the smallest sanction of that supe- 
riority is to be met with in Scripture. 

2dly, That while presbyters and bishops continued 
the same, as the Lord had appointed, no one possessed 
any pre-eminence as to power beyond another, and 
"the churches were governed by a common council 
of presbyters." (Communi concilio presbyterorum 
ecclesiae gubernabantur.) 

3d/y, That when bishops were placed above pres- 
byters, it was to prevent schisms, and they were raised 
to their superiority only by the custom of the Church, 
and not by any divine direction, (ut dissensionum 
plantaria evellerentur ad unum omnem solicitudinem 
esse delatam, episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine 
quam dispositionis dominicae veritate presbyteris 
esse majores.) 

<\thly, That this change took place when dissen- 
sions arose among different people or states where 
Christian Churches had been planted, and "one said, 
I am of Paul, another, I of Apollos, another, I of Ce- 
phas, and another, I of Christ;" to remedy which, 



356 LETTERS ON 

"it was resolved or determined over the whole world, 
that one should be set over the other presbyters, to 
whom the whole care of every separate church should 
be committed. (In toto orbe decretum est, ut unus 
de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quern 
omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina 
tollerentur.") 

5thly, He does not affirm, as has often been alleged 
by many Episcopalians, both Protestant and Popish, 
that this elevation of one of the presbyters above the 
rest of his brethren took place at once throughout 
the early Church, when the schism referred to by the 
Apostle Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 
arose in that Church. Had this been the case, an ex- 
traordinary spectacle would unquestionably have been 
exhibited to future ages, namely, the inspired and 
accredited ministers of Christ, the twelve Apostles, 
along with Paul, allowing the Church at its own 
pleasure to alter that constitution which they had pre- 
pared for it under the guidance of the Spirit, and to 
provide a remedy against the progress of schism which 
he had not suggested; and their conduct would have 
excited still greater surprise, as they have never made 
the most distant allusion to it, or expressed the small- 
est approbation of it in any of their Epistles. Besides, 
had it been introduced at that time and received their 
sanction, Jerome would never have represented it as 
originating merely in custom, (consuetudine eccle- 
siae,) and not in divine appointment, (dispositio do- 
minica); for the approbation of the Apostles, acting 
under the direction of the Holy Spirit, would certainly 
have invested it with that high character. He makes 
no such statement, however, in either of these pas- 
sages, but asserts distinctly, that as bishops and pres- 
byters were originally the same, both as to order and 
power, by the appointment of the Saviour, so they con- 
tinued the same long after the schism which took place 
at Corinth, and even during the whole of the time 
referred to in the latest of the apostolic writings; 
quoting in proof of this the Epistle to the Hebrews, 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 357 

the First Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third 
Epistles of John.* And so far from declaring that 
this elevation of one of the council of presbyters 
took place at once throughout the whole Christian 

* When Sanders, the Papist, asserted that bishops had been ap- 
pointed by the Church, after the schism at Corinth, with the approba- 
tion of the Apostles, though not under their direction, and appealed 
in proof of it to the testimony of Jerome, Whitaker replied in the fol- 
lowing terms: "Respondeo Sanderum plane aut non intelligere, aut 
non attendere quid Hieronymus velit. Etiamsi enim Apostolis vivis 
aliqui dixerunt, ego Pauli sum, ego Cephae, ego Apollo, et Hieron. 
scribit, antequam diceretur ego sum Pauli, &c, tamen Hieronymus 
non sensit ab Apostolis eum ordinem mutatum esse, sed postea eccle- 
siae judicio. Id Hieronymus significat cum ait, mox, in toto orbe, 
decretum est ut unus ex presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris. 
Num hoc ab Apostolis factum decretum est? Hieronymus ipse re- 
spondeat. Sicut presbyteri (inquit) sciunt, se ex ecclesiae consuetu- 
dine episcopo sibi praeposito esse subjectos. Ex ecclesiae consuetu- 
dine Hieronymus ait, non Apostolorum decreto; turn subnectit, ita 
episcopi noverint se presbyteris majores consuetudine magis quam 
dominicae dispositionis veritate. At si ilium ordinem Apostoli muta- 
vissent, et presbyteris episcopos praefecissent, et communi presby- 
terorum consilio ecclesias posthac regi vetuissent, ea sane dominica 
dispositio fuisset, utpote a Christi Apostolis profccta, nisi forte quae 
Apostoli decreverant ea consuetudini non dispositioni dominicae as- 
cribenda sint. Sed vivis Apostolis nihil est in illo ordine mutatum. 
Nam ilia ad Corinthios scripta epistola est, quum Paulus in Macedo- 
nian! ageret; at post hoc tempus Titum reliquit in Creta, ut presby- 
teros oppidatim constitueret; Tit. i. 5. Si mutandum ordinem Apos- 
tolus putasset, non praecepisset constitui in singulis oppidis presby- 
teros, nee Hieronymus ex Paulo; Philip, i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 5, 
7; ex Petro, 1 Pet. v. 1 ; ex Actis, Act. xx. 17, 28 ; ex Joanne, 2 Joh. 
i. et 3 Joh. i., testimonia attulisset, quibus presbyterum eundem esse 
cum episcopo demonstraret. Paulus Epistolas suas ad Philippenses, 
ad Timotheum, ad Titum, et Petrus suam, et Joannes suas scripse- 
runt postquam illud Corinthi natum schisma est; et Lucas etiam 
presbyteros Ephesinos post illud schisma a Paulo Miletum accersitos 
esse scribit. Cum Hieronymus his potissimum locis fretus, (Epist. ad 
Evagr.) contendat presbyterum parent esse episcopo per omnia, non 
potuit esse tarn immemor sui ut putaret ab apostolis earn rationem 
mutatam esse. Sic alibi cum Scripturae testimonia adduxisset quibus 
episcopum et presbyterum non differre evinceret, subjicit postea 
unum electum, qui caeteris praeponeretur. Si postea electus unus est 
qui presbyteris superior esset, non ergo Apostoli, sed ecclesiastica 
quaedam consuetudo ant constitutio differentiam Mam introduxit." 
Controv. 4, Quaest. 1, cap. 3, sect. 29. Such is the answer which 
was given to this Papist in the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
by this learned professor of divinity, when he brought forward the 
very same objections to our view of the sentiments of Jerome which 
are advanced by some of the advocates of Episcopacy in the present 
day. 



358 LETTERS ON 

Church, in consequence of the decree of some general 
council, as Bishop Russel and Mr. Boyd insinuate 
that we represent Jerome as asserting, "though there 
is not in the writings of any of the fathers, nor of any 
other author, ecclesiastical or civil, the slightest re- 
ference to any such canon or institute/'* we consider 
him as stating directly the contrary. He describes 
the progress of the schisms as gradual, for he says 
that they extended "from people to people," or 
through different countries, ("in populis,") when 
every one. thought that those whom he had baptized 
belonged to himself, and not to Christ. And he men- 
tions expressly that the adoption of the remedy was 
equally gradual, or, according to his own words, 
"by little and little," (paulatim); and that it was 
not in consequence of a decree of any general council, 
but of a resolution or determination of each of the 
Churches throughout the whole world, (toto orbe de- 
cretum,) as the schisms spread, to try the expedient 
for checking them which had been employed by 
others. He does not specify the particular time at 
which it was first tried, but it is plain that it must 
have been after the apostolic age. He tell us, indeed, 
that it was " when every one said I am of Paul, or I 
am of Apollos, or I of Cephas;" but he does not state 
that it was when this was said at Corinth, but when 
it was said among different people or in different 
countries; and he uses the very same expressions to 
describe the conduct of schismatics in the ages which 
followed, and even in his own day; for, says he, "we 
do not all speak the same thing, one saying I am of 
Paul, another, I am of Apollos, and another, I of 
Cephas, and destroy the unity of the Spirit," &c.t 
And as it will not follow from his applying the ex- 
pressions which were used by the first schismatics at 
Corinth to the schismatics who lived after the apos- 
tolic age, that he designed to tell us, in opposition to 

* Sermon, p. 35. 

+ " Quando non id ipsum idem loquimur, et alius dicit ego Pauli, 
ego Apollo, ego Cephae, dividimus Spiritus unitatem, et earn in partes 
et membra discerpimus;" in Ephes. lib. 2. cap. 4. , 



PI7SEYITE EPISCOPACY. 359 

the whole of his previous reasoning, that it was at the 
first of these periods, and not at the last, that this 
change was made, so it cannot be inferred, as has 
been done by Episcopalians from his saying to Eva- 
grius, that "what Aaron, and his sons, and the Levites 
were in the Temple, the bishops, and presbyters, and 
deacons might claim to be in the Church/'* he in- 
tended to represent bishops as superior to presbyters 
by divine appointment. He had been endeavouring 
previously, through the whole Epistle, to show, that 
as presbyters were equal to bishops, by the appoint- 
ment of Christ, the conduct of deacons, who exalted 
themselves above the former, was presumptuous and 
sinful. And as we cannot believe that he would sub- 
vert in the end what he had been labouring to es- 
tablish in the rest o/the Epistle, he must have design- 
ed merely to affirm, that he might check the ambition 
of the insolent deacon, that the same superiority which 
was possessed by Aaron and his sons over the Levites 
under the Old Dispensation, ought to be possessed by 
presbyters and bishops, whom he had proved to be 
not only equal, but the very same, under the New 
Dispensation. And he denominates the latter apos- 
tolic traditions, from the numerous passages which he 
had brought in proof of the equality and identity of 
presbyters and bishops, and their superiority to dea- 
cons, from the writings of the Apostles. 

He tells us, in short, as was already noticed, that 
even in the middle, or rather towards the end of the 
fourth century, the only thing in which a bishop was 
superior to a presbyter, was the power of ordination. 
But if this was really the case, and if bishops after- 
wards acquired the two additional powers of jurisdic- 
tion and confirmation, as they now possess them, not 
by divine right, but by assuming them to themselves, 
and the clergy consenting from whatever motives, it 
confirms the truth of his previous statement with re- 
gard to ordination, which he says they did not origi- 

* "Et ut sciamus tradiliones Apostolicas sumptas de Vcteri Testa- 
menlo, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc 
sibi episcopi, et presbyteri, et diaconi vindicent iu Ecclesia." 



360 LETTERS ON 

nally possess, and to which they had no more a title 
by divine right than to these other powers, but re- 
ceived it only by the deed of the Church, and not by 
the appointment of the Lord. It is likely that they 
attained the two latter powers by little and little, so 
as not to excite the jealousy of the clergy; and the 
extent to which they exercised their power in regard 
to ordination, and to presiding among the presbyters, 
might be so very small as not to awaken any such 
feelings in the ministers of the Church, and it might 
be only by degrees that it reached the height at which 
it arrived afterwards in the days of Jerome. If such, 
however, was the amount of their power when it was 
first conferred on them, it furnishes an answer to the 
extravagant and declamatory observations of Mr. 
Boyd, who expresses his astonishment, that " while 
this transaction (the introduction of diocesan Episco- 
pacy) was going on, whether originating in one am- 
bitious individual, or the example of some wonder- 
fully influential Church, — of which individual or of 
which Church there is no mention in history, — no 
note of alarm is sounded, no summons to resistance 
issued, no remonstrance heard from east to west, 
calling upon Christians to protect the constitution of 
the Christian Zion from impending injury and de- 
struction. "* When the bishops assumed the two 
last of these powers, and when archbishops, partriarchs 
and primates arose in the Church, he will certainly 
allow that a very great change took place in its con- 
stitution, whether originating in a few ambitious in- 
dividuals, or in any other cause, " of which individuals, 
and of which cause, there is no mention in history ; 
nor does it appear that any note of alarm was sounded, 
any summons to resistance issued, or any remonstrance 
neard from east to west, calling upon Christians to 
withstand these changes." But if the latter innovations 
passed unopposed, and were quietly acquiesced in, 
and generally adopted, though nothing is recorded of 
the individuals who introduced them, or of the way 
in which they were effected, I would like to be in- 

* Episcopacy and Presbytery, p. 156, 157. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 361 

formed whether the same thing might not happen, 
when, according to Jerome, the power of ordination 
and a perpetual presidency in the councils of the pres- 
byters were bestowed upon bishops by the deed of 
the Church. 

I have only further to remark on the statement of 
Jerome, that in the only instance which he mentions 
of the appointment of bishops, after they were first in- 
troduced, that of the bishops of Alexandria,' he repre- 
sents them as made by presbyters, just as the Roman 
army by its own deed made their emperor, and the 
deacons made their archdeacon. He does not say . 
whether they ordained them, though this is asserted 
afterwards by Eutychius. And it is evident that if 
they were ordained, they alone must have performed 
it ; for before diocesan bishops were adopted by the 
Church, who did not receive their office by any divine 
appointment, but by a mere human arrangement, 
there could be none but presbyters to consecrate those 
who were raised to the episcopate, not only in the 
Church of Alexandria, but in all the Churches. But 
if, according to Jerome, it was presbyters alone who 
began the succession, and ordained the first diocesan 
bishops in all the Churches, from whom the whole of 
the bishops of the present day, and the whole of their 
clergy, have derived their orders, the succession has 
been vitiated at its very commencement, and cannot be 
rectified; and if Presbyterian orders have no validity, 
there cannot, upon your principles, be a Church, or a 
minister, or a single individual who has any revealed 
and covenanted title to salvation on the face of the 
earth. 

The sum, then, of Jerome's observations seems to 
be this : He affirms it to be a fact, that while the 
original constitution of the Church remained, and pres- 
byters were equal to bishops, the Church was govern- 
ed by a common council of Presbyters; that when that 
constitution was altered by the introduction of dio- 
cesan bishops, it was not by divine appointment, but 
by a mere human arrangement ; that when one pres- 
byter was elevated above his brethren, and promoted 



362 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

to the episcopate, it was an expedient to repress 
schism ; that it was introduced by little and little, as 
dissensions spread among the Churches in different 
countries, and not all at once,* and was adopted ulti- 
mately by every Church, in consequence entirely of 
its own resolution, (decretum;) that even towards the 
end of the fourth century, bishops were distinguished 
from presbyters only by the power of ordaining minis- 
ters, and that when bishops were first made they were 
not only chosen, but made by presbyters. Now, if 
these be really facts, and not merely opinions, and 
we must hold them to be so, unless Episcopalians can 
show that the testimony of Jerome, "the most esteem- 
ed of the fathers," was contradicted by his contempo- 
raries, and by those who succeeded him, (and this has 
never yet been attempted,) they prove incontestably 
that Presbyterianism is the original constitution of 
the Church, as it was settled by the Apostles, and 
account for the introduction of diocesan Episcopacy; 
that the latter is an innovation, and a mere human 
institution; and that Churches which are at present 
governed by presbyters are far more likely to be free 
from schisms than other Churches, unless the inven- 
tions of men are superior to the polity which has been 
approved by God, because they resemble more nearly 
the model which he has presented to them in the 
Sacred Scriptures. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

* It never entered into the minds of Presbyterians to represent 
Jerome as saying that bishops were adopted at once through the 
whole world. Important changes, either in the civil constitutions of 
nations, or in the creation of a new order of ministers in Churches, 
and changes, too, exactly resembling each other, were never known 
to take place to that extent simultaneously, and could not by any 
possibility so take place; nor does Jerome say that it happened in 
the instance of which he speaks, but quite the contrary. Besides, 
he describes the pre-eminence conferred at first on one of the pres- 
byters above his brethren as so very small that it would awaken no 
jealousy, and says that it was increased gradually. 



363 



LETTER XXII. 

While the constitution of the Church, as settled by the Apostles, is acknow- 
ledged by Jerome to have been Presbyterian, he seems to have approved 
of a modified Episcopacy as a human arrangement for the prevention of 
schism. — This remedy acknowledged by Gratius to have increased, in 
place of repressing the evil. — Invalidity of the objection to Presbvterian 
principles, that they were held by Arius. who denied the divinity of Christ, 
inasmuch, as though he might err on the latter point, it would "not follow 
that he erred on everv other; for he agreed in many things wiih Episco- 
palians, and especially with those of them who condemned prayers for the 
dead. — Hilary. Augustine and Chrysostom admit the identity of presbyters 
and bishops. — Clemens Romanus mentions only two orders of ministers, 
and never refers to diocesan bishops. — No reference to them in the Epistle 
of Polycarp. — The short Epistles of Ignatius proved to be corrupted, so 
that no dependence can be placed on their statements respecting the or- 
ders in the ministry; and even admitting them to be genuine, no such 
powers are ascribed in them to bishops as are possessed by modem dio- 
cesan bishops. 

Reverend Sir, — The quotations which have been 
produced from the writings of Jerome prove incon- 
testable-, that in the opinion of that distinguished 
early father the constitution of the Church, as it was 
settled by the Apostles, was strictly Presbyterian; 
and they contain also his testimony to the important 
fact, (and from his nearness to the period when the 
change took place, and the absence of every thing 
like an opposite testimony, it is entitled unquestion- 
ably to the utmost credit,) that when Episcopacy was 
introduced, it was a mere human institution for pre- 
venting schism. But it is only fair to remark, that 
he approved of that arrangement ; for he says in an- 
other part of his writings, "The safety of the Church 
depends on the dignity of the highest priest, on whom, 
if a certain extraordinary and superior authority above 
all be not conferred, there will be as many dissensions 
as there are priests."* He appears to me to have 
erred in that opinion ; for human institutions are cer- 
tainly less fitted to prevent schisms, and promote at 
once purity of doctrine, and peace and harmony, 

* " Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si 
non cxsors quaedam, et ah omnibus cminens datur potcstas, tot in 
Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot saccrdotes." Dial, ad Lucifer. 



364 LETTERS ON 

than the form of government ivhich the Redeemer 
himself has appointed for his Church. And it is 
far more likely that a number of faithful Presbyterian 
ministers, residing near each other among their several 
parishes, will watch over one another, and repress the 
first beginnings of evil, meeting as they do once a 
month, or once every two months, in their Presby- 
teries, and once every six months in their Synods, to 
which complaints may be carried by any single min- 
ister, if the rest fail to perform their duty, and once 
a year in their General Assembly, to whom even the 
Synod is responsible ; it is far more likely, I say, that 
they will repress the first beginnings of evil, than a 
single individual denominated a bishop, who, though 
equally faithful, has to superintend perhaps four or 
five hundred, or perhaps a thousand ministers and 
congregations, and who is responsible to no Synod or 
General Assembly. And accordingly, as was ob- 
served by Orthuinus Gratius, the very remedy soon 
increased the evil; for, "as Origen acquaints us, the 
Christians," even then, " were divided into so many 
factions, that they had no name common to them but 
that of Christian, and they agreed in nothing else but 
that name; and as Socrates informs us, they were 
derided publicly in the theatres by the people for their 
dissensions and sects; and when, as Constantine the 
Great said, there were so many contentions and con- 
troversies in the Church, that this very single cala- 
mity seemed, to exceed the miseries of the former 
times (of persecution) ; when Tbeophilus, Epipha- 
nius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ruffinus, and St. Je- 
rome, all of them Christians, all fathers, and all 
Catholics, contested with each other with most vio- 
lent and implacable animosity ; when, as Xazianzen 
saith, the members of the same body consumed one 
another."* But still, though Jerome erred in that 
opinion, for these were the schisms which prevailed 
in the Church after the introduction of Episcopacy, 
yet it was undeniably his opinion, and that of the 
fathers of his day, who agreed with him in thinking 

* Bishop Jewel, Apology of the Church of England, p. 36. 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACr. 365 

that presbyters and bishops were originally equal, and 
who corroborated also his testimony, that the Church 
was then governed by a council of presbyters. "And 
therefore," says Stillingfleet, "some have well ob- 
served the difference between the opinions of Jerome 
and Arius. For, as to the matter itself, I believe, 
upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will 
prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, 
Primasius,Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were 
all of Arius' judgment as to the identity of both name 
and order of bishops and presbyters in the primitive 
Church ; but here lay the difference. Arius from 
hence proceeded to separation from bishops and their 
churches, because they were bishops. And Blondel 
well observes, that the main ground why Arius was 
condemned, was for unnecessary separation from the 
Church of Sebastia, and those bishops too who agreed 
with him in other things, as Eustathius the bishop did; 
whereas, had his mere opinion about bishops been 
the ground of his being condemned, there can be no 
reason assigned why this heresie, if it were then 
thought so, was not mentioned either by Socrates, 
Theodoret, Sozomen or Evagrius, before whose time 
he lived, when yet they mention the Eustathiani, who 
were contemporaries with him. Jerome, therefore, 
was not ranked with Arius, because, though he held 
the same opinion as to bishops and presbyters, yet he 
was far from the consequence of Arius, that all bishops 
were to be separated from."* 

Having mentioned Arius, who is often thrown up 
to us as the first who maintained the identity of bishops 
and presbyters, and who erred at the same time so 
greatly in denying the supreme divinity of the Saviour, 
I would briefly remark, that many have entertained 
doubts of his having really embraced that fearful 
heresy. It is unnecessary for me, however, to enter 
on that question, as the last of these opinions surely 
has no connection with the first; and no one will con- 
tend that because he was wrong in his sentiments on 
one great point, he was wrong, for instance, in his 

» Irenicum, p. 276, 277. 



366 LETTERS ON 

views of the inspiration of the Scriptures, or of the 
difference between virtue and vice, and of the doc- 
trines of a supreme overruling providence, and of a 
future judgment; and that we ought to reject the lat- 
ter as well as the former because he held them. Arius 
entertained the very same opinion of the identity of 
bishops and presbyters with Jerome and others of the 
orthodox fathers, to whom I shall refer immediately, 
and defended it with much ability, even according to 
the statement of Epiphanius, by the very same argu- 
ments; while the very first of the arguments of Epi- 
phanius for diocesan bishops is a begging of the ques- 
tion, and the rest are so weak, that most Episcopalians 
would be ashamed of them. Arius denied also, that 
under the New Testament Dispensation we are bound 
to observe the fasts of the Church and other festivals 
which are kept by your own and other Episcopalian 
Churches, and reasoned very forcibly in support of his 
position. Epiphanius maintained the opposite opinion, 
and argued in proof of it from PauPs going up to 
Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost, and from his con- 
forming to other Jewish rites, which if at all conclu- 
sive, would have justified the Church in the days of 
that father, and in succeeding ages, in circumcising as 
well as baptizing the children of Jewish converts, be- 
cause Paul circumcised as well as baptized Timothy, 
and in keeping the new moons, as well as other Jew- 
ish holy days. And Arius contended against prayers 
for the dead; for, said he, " if prayers can assist those 
who have departed this life, no one in future will need 
to live piously, or to do good, but he will require only 
to attach to himself some friends in whatever way he 
chooses, and prevail with them by money or entreaties 
to intercede with God for him, that he may sustain 
no disadvantage from his evil conduct, and may be 
delivered from the punishment of his aggravated 
offences." While Epiphanius boldly vindicated the 
practice to an extent to which I presume you would 
scarcely follow him, declaring, that " they prayed not 
only for the righteous, but for sinners, to whom they 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 367 

implored mercy from the Lord;"* and that "their 
prayers were useful to them, though they could not 
extinguish ah their faults."t Now, as no consistent 
Protestant Episcopalian would hesitate for a moment 
to condemn the practice of praying for the dead, be- 
cause Arius was one of the first who ventured to 
oppose it, so no Presbyterian will hesitate in the least, 
or feel at all ashamed to adopt his views respecting 
presbyters and bishops, or fasts and festivals in honour 
of the martyrs, when they are supported by Scripture, 
though you should establish by evidence which can- 
not be controverted, that he entertained unsound and 
unscriptural sentiments respecting the divinity of 
Christ.! 

* " Nam et justorum pariter et peccatorum mentionem facimus ; 
peccatorum quidem ut iis a Domino misericordiam imploremus." 

t "Caeterum quae pro mortuis concipiuntur preces iis utiles sunt, 
tametsi non omnes culpas extinguant." 

X " The argument," says Dr. Reynolds in his letter to Sir Francis 
Knollys, "which he (Dr. Bancroft, who had represented Augustine 
as charging Arius with heresy, for asserting that, according to Scrip- 
ture, bishops and presbyters are the same,) bringeth to prove it are 
partely overweake, partly untrue ; overweake, that, p. 18, 19 and 69, 
he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adjoyneth of 
the general consent of the Church. For though Epiphanius do say 
that Aerius his assertion is full of folly, yet he disproveth not the 
reason which Aerius stood on out of the Scriptures; nay, he dealeth 
so in seeking to disprove it, that Bellarmine the Jesuit, (torn. i. cont. 
5, lib. 1, cap. ]5,) though desirous to make the best of Epiphanius, 
whose opinion herein he mainteyneth against the Protestants, yet is 
forced to confesse that Epiphanius his answer is not at all the wisest, 
nor any way can fit the text." 

" As for the general consent of the whole Church, which D. Ban- 
croft saith, condemned that opinion of Arius, for an heresy, and him- 
self for an heretike, because he persisted in it, that is a large speach : 
but what proof hath he that the whole Church did so ? It appeareth, 
he saith, in Epiphanius. It doeth not; and the contrary appeareth 
by S. Jerome, and sondry others, who lived, some in the same time, 
some after Epiphanius, even S. Austin himself, though D. Bancroft 
cite lii j ii as bearing witness thereof likewise. I grant S. Austin, in 
his book of Heresies, ascribcth this to Aerius for one, that he sayd, 
Prcsbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni: But it is 
one thing to say, there ought to be no difference betwixt them, (which 
Aerius saying, condemned the Churches' order, yea, made a schisme 
therein, and so is censured by S. Austin, counting it an heresie as in 
Epiphanius he took it recorded, himself, as he witnesseth, (de Heres. 
ad quod vult Deum in praefatione,) not knowing how far the name of 
heresie should be stretched,) another thing to say that by the word of 



368 LETTERS ON 

I have said, that a number of the early fathers in 
the age of Jerome adopted his views of presbyters 
and bishops; and among these I would refer only to 
the following: 

" In the bishop," says Hilary, " are all orders, be- 
cause he is the first priest, that is, the prince of priests, 
and a prophet and evangelist. The things which were 
written by the Apostle do not correspond in all respects 
with the ordination which is now in the Church, be- 
cause they were written at the beginning, or first age 
of the Church. For he calls Timothy, who had been 
ordained a presbyter by himself, a bishop, because at 
first presbyters were denominated bishops, so that one 
dying, the next succeeded him. In fine, in Egypt, the 
presbyters (according to some) confirm, (consignant,) 
or (according to others) ordain. But, because the fol- 
lowing presbyters were found to be unworthy of the 
first place, the plan was changed, a council ordaining, 

God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order and custome 
of the Church, which S. Austin (Ep. 19,) saith in effect himselfe; so- 
far was he from witnessing this to be heresy, by the general consent 
of the whole Church. Which untruth, how wrongfully it is fathered 
on him and on Epiphanius, (who yet are all the witnesses that D. Ban- 
croft hath produced for the proofe thereof, or can for ought that I 
know,) it may appear by this, that our learned countryman of good 
memory, Bishop Jewel, (Defense of the Apology, part ii. cap. 9, divis. 
1, p. 198,) when Harding, to convince the same opinion of heresie, 
alledged the same witnesses, he cyting to the contrary Chrysostome, 
Jerome, Austen, and Ambrose, knit up his answer with these words; 
All these, and other more holy fathers, together with the Apostle S. 
Paul, for thus saying by Harding's advice, must be held for heretikes. 
And Michael Medina, (de Sacrif. Nom. Orig. et Confirm., lib. i. cap. 
5,) a man of great account in the Counsell of Trent, more ingenuous 
herein than many other Papists, affirmeth not only the former ancient 
writers alleadged by Bishop Jewel, but also another Jerome, Theo- 
doret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophilact were of the same mind, 
touching this matter, with Aerius. With whom agree likewise 
CEcumenius, (in 1 Tim. iii. ;) and Anselmus, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, (in Epist. ad Tit.;) and another Anselmus, (Collect, Can. lib. 
vii. cap. 87 et 127;) and Gregorie, (Policar, lib. ii. tit. 19 and 39;) 
and Gratian, (Can. legimus, dist. 39, cap. Olimp. ;) and after them 
how many, it being once enrolled in the canon law for sound and 
Catholike doctrine, and thereupon publikely taught by learned men, 
(Author. Gloss, in cap. dist. citat, &c.;) all which do bear witnes 
against D. Bancroft, of the point in question, that it was not condemn- 
ed for an heresie, by the general consent of the whole Church," &c. 
See the letter at large, which is worthy of a careful perusal. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 369 

that not priority of order, but merit, should guide them 
in the appointment of a bishop, which was to be made 
by the judgment of many priests, lest one who was 
unworthy of it should rashly usurp the office, to the 
offence of many."* And again, he remarks on 1 Tim. 
in, " After the bishop, he gives directions about the 
ordination of the deacon. Why? because there is 
only one ordination of a bishop and a presbyter, for 
each of them is a priest ; but the bishop is the first, so 
that every bishop is a presbyter, not every presbyter 
a bishop ; for he is a bishop, who is the first among 
the presbyters. In fine, he mentions that Timothy 
had been ordained a bishop, but, because he had no 
other before him, he was a bishop. "t But, if he state 
expressly that presbyters were at first denominated 
bishops ; that the individual who afterwards received 
that name by way of eminence was only the first pres- 
byter, and succeeded to his situation at first by seniority 
of order, and subsequently by the votes of his fellow 
presbyters; that his ordination, and that of the other 
presbyters, was the same, and he received no new 
consecration when he was made a bishop, and that in 
Egypt, when the bishop was absent, presbyters either 
confirmed or ordained, I leave it to any impartial judge 
to say whether he must not have considered the con- 
stitution of the primitive Church to have been strictly 
Presbyterian. 

In like manner, the author of the Questions on the 
Old and New Testament, which are bound up with 
the works of St. Augustine, but which Blondel thinks 
were written by Hilary, the deacon, says, " Paul shows 
that a presbyter is meant when he speaks of a bishop, 
for he points out to Timothy, whom he had made a 
presbyter, what kind of a person he should ordain a 
bishop. For what is a bishop but the first presbyter; 
that is, the highest priest ? In fine, he speaks of them 

* " In episcopo omncs ordincs sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc 
est, princepsest sacerdotum, et propheta, et evangelista," &c. 

t « Post episcopum diaconi ordinationem subjicit. Quare, nisi quia 
episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est, uterque enirn sacerdos est, 
sed episcopus primus est," &c. 

24 



370 LETTERS ON 

as his fello w -presbyters and fellow-priests. Does a 
bishop call the deacons his fellow-ministers ? No, as- 
suredly, for they are greatly his inferiors. In Alex- 
andria and all Egypt, if a bishop be wanting, a priest 
consecrates or ordains. That there is a great distance 
between a deacon and a priest is evident from the 
Acts of the Apostles."* But if, as this writer de- 
clares, Paul meant bishops when he spake of presby- 
ters, if the bishop was only the first presbyter, and if 
presbyters ordained when the bishop was absent ; and 
if, as he further asserts, (Quest. 46,) no one could act 
in the room of a minister who held any office, if he 
was not possessed of power to execute that office, it is 
plain that he must have regarded bishops and presby- 
ters as nearly the same, and that his sentiments must 
have been similar to those of Jerome. 

"Although," says Augustine to Jerome, " accord- 
ing to the names of honour which custom has now 
introduced into the Church, the office of a bishop is 
higher than that of a presbyter, yet in many things 
Augustine is inferior to Jerome,"t where he represents 
the superiority of the former to the latter as originat- 
ing merely in custom. " If it is asked," says Prima- 
sius, Bishop of Adrumetum, who was a disciple of 
Augustine, " why the Apostle, in 1 Tim. iii. made no 
mention of presbyters, but comprehended them under 
the name of bishops ; it was," he replies, " because 
they are the second and nearly the same degree, as he 
shows when writing to the Philippians; for he addresses 
his Epistle to the bishops and deacons, though one 
city could not have a plurality of bishops.}" And, 
says Chrysostom, in his 11th Homily, "omitting the 
order of the presbyters he passes to the deacons. And 

* " Presbyterum autem intelligi episcopum probat Paulus Apostolus 
quando Timotheum quem ordinavit presbyterum instruit qualem de- 
beat creare episcopum. Quid est enim epi>xopus nisi primus presby- 
ter? Nam in Alexandria et per totam iEgyptum, si desit episcopus, 
consecrat presbyter," &,c. 

t " Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus 
obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio major sit," &cc. Epist. 19. ad Hieron. 

X " Quaeritur cur dc presbyteris nullam fecerit mentionem, sed eos 
in episcoporum nomine comprehenderit : quia secundus, imopene unus 
est gradus, sicut ad Philippenses," &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 371 

why so ? Because there is not much difference be- 
tween bishops and presbyters ; for presbyters are or- 
dained for the instruction and government of the 
Church ; and the same things which he said to bishops 
apply to presbyters ; for in ordination alone they are 
superior to presbyters, and appear to be above them."* 

But admitting that these writers agree with Jerome, 
and the difference between them, if there be any, is 
extremely small, let us consider very shortly what is 
said on this subject by the early fathers. And here I 
must repeat a former remark, that it will not avail the 
cause of Episcopacy, though we should meet with the 
names of bishops, priests and deacons, unless it be 
distinctly stated, that the powers which were possessed 
by the primitive bishops correspond to those which 
are claimed at present by diocesan bishops. 

The first of these is Clemens Romanus, whose first 
Epistle to the Corinthians is perhaps the purest pro- . 
duction of Christian antiquity, though his argument 
for the resurrection from that of the Phoenix is so 
weak and contemptible, that we would scarcely have 
expected it to have been used by a man who was 
entitled to the high character which is ascribed to 
him by Episcopalians."! It deserves, however, to be 

* " To rm Tr^&uTioav ray/ua aqu;" &c. Homily on 1 Tim. iii. 1. 
Theodoret, too, says, "The Apostle calls a presbyter a bishop, as we 
showed when we expounded the Epistle to the Philippians, which may 
be also learned from this place ; for, after the precepts proper to 
bishops, he describes the things that agree to deacons, But, as I said, 
of old they called the same men both bishops and presbyters." 

+ "Let us consider," says he, " that wonderful type of the resur- 
rection, which is seen in the Eastern countries, that is to say, in 
Arabia. There is a certain bird, called aPbcenix: of this there is 
never but one at a time, and that lives five hundred years; and when 
the time of its dissolution draws near, that it must die, it makes it- 
self a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices; into which, 
when its time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But its flesh, putrefy- 
ing, breeds a certain worm, which, being nourished with the juice 
of the dead bird, brings forth feathers ; and when it is grown to a 
perfect state, it takes up the nest in which the bones of its parent 
lie, and carries it from Arabia into Egypt, to a city called Ilelio- 
polis: and flying in open day, in the sight of all men, lays it upon 
the altar of the sun, and so returns from whence it came. The 
priests then search into the records of the time, and find that it re- 



372 LETTERS ON 

noticed, that it is neither addressed to a bishop, but to 
the Church of Corinth ; nor is there the slightest notice 
of him in any part of the Epistle, but he speaks always 
of their rulers, (yyov/xtvoi) and presbyters, (n^eo^vr^oi,) 
though Archbishop Wake, in order to keep the latter 
out of view, translates the term, " such as were aged." 
And says Stillingfleet, " Had Episcopacy been insti- 
tuted on the occasion of the schism at Corinth," (as 
many Episcopalians contend,) " certainly of all places 
we should the soonest have heard of a bishop at 
Corinth for the remedying of it; and yet almost of all 
places, these heralds that derive the succession of 
bishops from the Apostles' times are the most plunged 
whom to fix on at Corinth. And they that can find 
any one single bishop at Corinth at the time when 
Clemens wrote his Epistle to them, (about another 
schism as great as the former, irhich certainly had 
not been according to their opinion, if a bishop had 
been there before,) must have better eyes and judg- 
ment than the deservedly admired Grotius, (and he 
was a great friend of Episcopacy,) who brings this, in 
his Epistle to Bignonius, as an argument of the un- 
doubted antiquity of that Epistle, that Clement no 
where mentions that singular authority of bishops, 
which, by Church customs, after the death of Mark 
at Alexandria, and by its example in other places, 
began to be introduced; but Clement clearly shows, 
as did the Apostle Paul, that then, by the common 
council of the presbyters, who, both by Paul and Cle- 
ment, are called bishops, the Churches were govern- 
ed. ,? * Nay, when he speaks of the persons against 
whom the schismatics had risen up, he represents 
them as the presbyters, and never makes the smallest 
allusion to a diocesan bishop. " It is a shame, my belov- 
ed," says he, "yea, a very great shame, and unworthy 
of your Christian profession, to hear that the most 
firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, 

turned precisely at the end of Jive hundred years." And yet Cle- 
ment, who retails this fable, and reasons from it, is the best of all the 
fathers. 

* Irenicum, p. 279, 260. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 373 

by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against 
its priests/' as Archbishop Wake renders it, or, ac- 
cording to the original, "its presbyters, (rf££oj3urf£cn;$.") 
And it is the same persons to whom he endeavours to 
bring them into subjection. "Who is there among 
you that is generous? Let him say, if this sedition, 
this contention, and these schisms be on my account, 
I am ready to depart, to go whithersoever ye please, 
and to do whatsoever ye command me ; only let the 
flock of Christ be in peace, with the (elders, Arch- 
bishop Wake,) presbyters that are set over it, 
(xa9iga t u(viov 7ie,£ofivtse,M.") And yet Clement is one 
of the writers to whom Bishop Russel, Mr. Boyd, and 
other Episcopalians are accustomed to appeal, as 
proving that the Church was then governed by dio- 
cesan bishops. 

Clement indeed says, that "the Apostles knew, by 
our Lord Jesus Christ, that contention would arise on 
account of the name of the episcopate. And there- 
fore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they ap- 
pointed persons, and then gave directions how, when 
they should die, other chosen and approved men 
should succeed in their ministry." And he tells us 
in another passage, that the Apostles, "preaching 
through countries and cities, appointed the first fruits 
of their ministry bishops and deacons (Archbishop 
Wake, ministers,) over such as should believe, after 
they had proved them by the Spirit. Nor was this 
any thing new, since long before it was written con- 
cerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the 
Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their 
bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith." 
Now, the first observation which is suggested by these 
passages is this, that, he mentions only two, and not 
three orders of ministers as appointed for the Church. 
And it is impossible to escape from this remark, by 
saying with Mr. Boyd, that the Apostles were still 
living, and that they occupied the place of the first 
order: for it is evident, from the first quotation, that 
he enumerates the orders of ministers who were to 
govern and instruct the Church after their death. 



374 LETTERS ON 

And it is further evident, that the highest of these two 
orders, or the bishops, were the presbyters, of whom 
he had been speaking throughout the whole Epistle 
as set over the Church of Corinth, as well as other 
Churches, and in reference to whom he says at the 
conclusion, " Do ye therefore, who laid the founda- 
tion of this sedition, submit yourselves unto your 
presbyters, bending the knees of your hearts." Milner 
accordingly admits this ; for, says he, " At first indeed, 
and for some time, church governors were only of 
two ranks, presbyters and deacons. The Church of 
Corinth continued long in this state, as far as one 
may judge from Clement's Epistle"* And says Fa- 
ber, " Here we may observe no more than two orders 
are specified, the word bishops being plainly used as 
equipollent to the word presbyters; and all possi- 
bility of misapprehension is avoided by the circum- 
stance of Clement's affirmation, that the appointment 
of these two orders was foretold in prophecy which 
announced the appointment of exactly two descrip- 
tions of spiritual officers. Had the Church in Cle- 
ment's time universally acknowledged and believed 
that three distinct orders of clergy had been appointed, 
that father never could have asserted such a form of 
polity to be foretold in a prophecy which announced 
the appointment of no more than two sorts of officers, 
described as being overseers and ministers."! And 
it agrees exactly with the interpretation of the pro- 
phecy given by Irenaeus, in a passage before quoted, 
where he observes, " Such presbyters the Church 
nourishes, of whom the prophet says, I will give thee 
thy princes or rulers in peace, and thy bishops in 
righteousness." And though, as Bishop Russel re- 
marks, " Clement reminds them, that, in the Jewish 
Church, the high-priest had his proper services to 
perform ; that to the priests their particular place was 
appointed; and that the Levites also had their allotted 
ministry to discharge;" it can no more be inferred 
that he intended to assert that there ought to be as 

* Church History, vol. i. p. 161. 

t Consult him on the Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 558. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 375 

many orders in the Christian ministry as in the Jewish, 
than it could be alleged that he meant to teach us 
that there ought to be as many orders in it as there 
were gradations of rank in an army ; because, when 
enforcing subjection, he says in another passage, "all 
are not generals, nor colonels, nor captains, nor in- 
ferior officers, but every one in his respective rank 
does what is commanded him by the king, and those 
who have the authority over him." 

And though he says that " the Apostles knew by 
our Lord Jesus Christ that there should contentions 
arise upon account of the episcopate," yet it is plain, 
from the conclusion of the paragraph, that it means 
merely the over-sight or superintendence of a con- 
gregation ; for he represents it as an oversight or epis- 
copacy which could be performed by presbyters. " It 
would be no small sin in us," says he, "should we 
cast off those from the episcopate," or, as it is trans- 
lated by Archbishop Wake in the notes, " bishopric, 
who holily, and without blame, fulfil the duties of 
it." After which he adds, showing that he is speak- 
ing of presbyters, "Blessed are those presbyters, 
(7t£s6j3vtee,o(,,) who, having finished their course before 
these times, have obtained a fruitful and perfect dis- 
solution, for they have no fear lest any one should 
turn them out of the place which is now appointed 
for them." Not a particle of evidence, then, can be 
produced from Clement for diocesan Episcopacy.* 

* When Clement says that the Apostles, foreseeing there would be 
contentions about the episcopate, appointed fit persons to succeed 
them, Dr. Hammond, in his Power of the Keys, c. iii. p. 413, and Dr. 
Arden, in his Discourse on the passage, translate the word, ewc«»v, 
list, and render the phrase thus, " They left a list of other chosen and 
approved men to succeed them in their ministry." " They set down," 
says Hammond, a list or continuation of successors ;" which version 
the Tractarians in their notes on this passage seem to favour. It 
would be truly satisfactory if any of the Tractarians, or any other 
Episcopalian, could mention a single father who had seen the list, and 
examined the names in it, and ascertained whether it fixed their suc- 
cessors for the following century, or the first six centuries, or till the 
end of the world, and whether it included their successors in all 
the Churches. And it would be still more satisfactory, if he could 
tell where it was now to be found. If it could only be discovered, 
how invaluable would it be to the Christian Church! It would settle 



376 LETTERS ON 

The next document which is quoted by Bishop 
Russel in proof of the existence of three Episcopal 
orders, is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. 
But he has omitted to tell us in what part of it he 
found them, and I have been unable to discover it. 
Polycarp does not represent himself as a bishop, and 
for aught that appears, he might have been only 
the senior presbyter or moderator of the Church of 
Smyrna. He makes no allusion to a diocesan bishop 
at Philippi, or to any vacancy in that see, or to any 
bishop in any other diocese. And though he points 
out the duties of deacons and presbyters, he does not 
give the smallest hint of a superior order, nor make 
any reference to the duties belonging to it. And as 
Archbishop Wake fixes the date of this Epistle " at 
the end of the year of our Lord 116, or in the begin- 
ning of 117," (Preliminary Discourse, p. 119,) the 
silence of Polycarp respecting the Episcopal order, so 
far from supporting the assertion of Bishop Russel, 
furnishes a strong presumptive proof that it had not 
at that time been introduced into the Church. 

The third, however, and the principal authority to 
which Episcopalians appeal for the existence of these 
orders at that early period, are the short Epistles of 
Ignatius, which were written, according to Bishop 
Russel, in the year 110, or in 116.* But before any 
argument can be founded on them in support of their 
principles, two things must be proved ; 1*/, not only 
that they were written by Ignatius, but that they are 
so free from interpolation, as that we can depend on 
them as the uncorrupted writings of Ignatius ; and, 
2dly, that if they are genuine, as when they issued 
from the pen of the Martyr, they present such a view 

at once, by ocular demonstration, all dispute about the apostolic suc- 
cession; for we would require only to look into it, to see whether the 
bishops who had come after them in all the Churches for 1800 years, 
were the very individuals whom the Apostles, before they died, put 
down in their list. And there would be no need for the sovereign 
to issue a conge d'elire in future to any dean and chapter to elect a 
new bishop, for they would require only to examine some certified 
copy of the list, and see who came next. It is difficult to write with 
any thing like patience of such absurdities. 
* Sermon, p. 28. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 377 

of the powers of bishops as is inconsistent with Pres- 
bytery, and confirm the powers which are claimed 
and exercised by diocesan bishops. Now, I deny 
that they can establish either of these positions, though, 
from the length to which this discussion has already 
extended, I am prevented from entering so fully into 
the subject as I had originally intended. 

I am aware, that when Calvin and the Centurists 
of Magdeburgh rejected these Epistles, it was the 
long Epistles, and not those which were discovered 
by Usher and Vossius, and therefore I do not found 
on their opinion with regard to the latter. But I 
would remind Episcopalians, that Whitgift, and Bil- 
son, and others of their bishops, contended as zealously 
for the genuineness of the former, though it is now 
abandoned by every one as utterly untenable, as they 
themselves contend for that of the short Epistles. 
Salmasius and Blondel deny the genuineness of the 
latter, and were ably supported not only by Daille, 
but by La Roque, the suppression of whose second 
dissertation, through the influence of the Episco- 
palians of his day, was acknowledged by his son, as 
is mentioned by Mr. Jamieson in his Examination of 
the Fundamentals of the Hierarchy.* Dr. Owen, too, 
of whom the Rev. Mr. Sinclair says that he was re- 
spectable for his piety, as well as erudition,! so far 
from entertaining an opposite opinion, as he supposes, 

* " La Roque, in favour of his deceased friend, (Daille,) undertook 
the patrociny of this hero; and except fame be altogether false, has 
fortunately defended his judgment. These observations were again 
assaulted by the famous Beveridge, to whom our author, preparing 
an answer which we have by us, almost perfected, through the impor- 
tunity of some friends, was suddenly turned another way. Thus he, 
and who these friends were we are informed by another author, a man 
of the Episcopal persuasion, and therefore may the better be believed 
in this matter, viz. Jos. Walker, translator of La Roque's History of 
the Eucharist, who, describing the life of La Roque, which he pre- 
fixes to his translation, tells us, that at the request of some persons 
favouring Episcopacy, he did not finish this second piece." Jamie- 
son's Fundamentals of the Hierarchy examined, p. 112. 

t Dissertations vindicating the Church of England, p. 57, note. — It 
is evident that Mr. Sinclair is not acquainted with the writings of 
Dr. Owen, which contain a view of his sentiments respecting these 
Epistles. 



37S LETTERS ON 

says, that " these Epistles seemed to him to be like 
the children that the Jews had by their strange wives, 
Neh. xiii., who spake partly in the language of Ash- 
dod, and partly in the language of the Jews."* Mo- 
sheim says, " So considerable a degree of obscurity 
hangs over the question respecting the authenticity of 
not only a part, but the whole of the Epistles ascribed 
to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case of much in- 
tricacy and doubt." And again, he remarks, " to ascer- 
tain with precision the exact extent to which they may 
be considered genuine appears to me to be beyond the 
reach of all human penetration. "t Dr. Neander re- 
presents them as " interpolated by some one who was 
prejudiced in favour of the Hierarchy;' 7 (Church 
History, vol. i. p. 190.) And Ernesti declares in his 
MS. Lectures, that " though he sat down to the pe- 
rusal of them under an impression that they were 
genuine, he was forced, while reading them, to come 
to the conclusion, that it was scarcely credible that an 
apostolical man, such as Ignatius was, could have 
written them as they now are. "J And that this con- 
clusion was just will appear, I think, from the follow- 
ing considerations : 

1. Passages are quoted from them by some of the 
fathers which are not now to be found in them. 
Jerome, for instance, says, (Dial. 3, contra Pelag.) 
" Ignatius, an apostolical man and martyr, writes 
boldly, that the Lord chose as Apostles men who were 
sinners above all others." It was indeed a bold say- 
ing, but it does not occur in any of the Epistles; and 
if they have undergone some changes, and have some 
things left out, why might they not undergo others, 
and have some things put in? 

* Preface of his Treatise on the Perseverance of the Saints, p. 13. 
"The foysted passages," says he, p. 10, " in many places are so evi- 
dent, that no man who is not resolved to say any thing - , without care 
of proof or truth, can once appeare in any defensative of them." 

+ Commentary by Vindal, vol. i. p. 276,278. 

t " Ernesti vero se etsi ad lectionem harum epistolarum cum 
opinione esse genuinas acccsserit, tamen inter legendum cognovisse 
profitetur, vix credible virum apostolieum, qualis fuerit Ignatius, sic 
scripsisse," &c. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 379 

2. Many weak and foolish things occur in them, as 
Ernesti observes, " and scarcely worthy of an aposto- 
lical man. You meet with numerous passages about 
the dignity and prerogatives of bishops and presbyters ; 
and the constant song of almost all the Epistles is this, 
"Honour the bishop, and you will honour God the 
Father; honour the presbyters, and you will honour 
the Son; honour the deacons, and you will honour 
the Holy Spirit. Such a comparison of the ministers 
of the Church with the Sacred Trinity is unquestion- 
ably unworthy of an apostolical man."* And it is 
impossible, I think, to look into these Epistles, with- 
out perceiving that his observations are well founded. 
In the first of them, for example, the duties of the 
Church of Ephesus to the bishop, (and it extends to 
little more than eight jjages,) are dwelt on more fre- 
quently than the duties of the members of the Church 
to its ministers in the whole Neiv Testament. In the 
second, (the Epistle to the Magnesians,) which extends 
to five pages, the bishop is brought forward six times; 
in the third, (the Epistle to the Tralhans,) which is 
scarcely five pages, seven times; in the fifth, (to the 
Philadelphians,) which is little more than four pages, 
five times; in the sixth, (to the Church of Smyrna,) 
three times; and once in very strong terms in the short 
Epistle to Polycarp. And compare the language in 
which the Scriptures point out the degree of respect, 
and the other duties which are due from Christians to 
their ministers, with that which is used in these Epis- 
tles to express the respect which was considered to be 
due especially to bishops. "We beseech you breth- 
ren," said Paul to the Thessalonians, (1 Thess. v. 12, 
13,) "to know them which are over you in the Lord, 
and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly 
in love for their work's sake." " Let the presbyters 

* " Multa jejuna et viro apostolico vix digna. Multa enim in iis 
repcriuntur loca de di^nitate et praerogativa episcoporum et presby- 
terorum ; et continua fere omnium epistolarum cantilena est, Jionora 
Episcopum, ct honorabis Deum Patrern ; honora presbyteros, et 
honorabis Filium; honora diaconos, ct honorabis Spiritum Sanctum. 
Talis vero eomparatio ministrormn ecclesiae cum S S. Trinitate pro- 
fecto est indigna viro apostolico." 



380 LETTERS ON 

that rule well," said he to Timothy, ( 1 Tim. v. 17,) 
"be counted worthy of double honour," (or, as ap- 
pears from the following verse, maintenance, tifirj, 
where it is required,) "especially they who labour in 
the word and doctrine." And said he to the Hebrews, 
(xiii. 17,) "Obey them that h<ave the rule over you, 
and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, 
as they that must give account." But the following 
are the terms in which the dignity of the bishop is 
represented in these Epistles, and in which they point 
out the honour which was due to him : 

" I beseech you, by Jesus Christ, to love your bishop, 
and that you would all strive to be like unto him. It 
becomes you to run together, according to the will of 
your bishop, as also ye do. For your famous presby- 
tery (worthy of God) is fitted as exactly to the bishop 
as the strings are to the harp. You are joined to him 
as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to 
the Father. The more that any one sees his bishoj? 
silent, the more let him revere him.''* " It is there- 
fore evident that ive ought to look upon the bishop 
even as ive would do upon the Lord himself!" Epis- 
tle to the Ephesians. 

"I exhort you that, ye study to do all things in a 
divine concord: your bishop presiding in the place 
of God; your presbyters in the place of the Council 
(or Sanhedrim) of the Apostles ; and your deacons, 
most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of 
Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages, 
and appeared in the end to us. It will behove you, 
with all sincerity, to obey your bishop in honour of 
him, whose pleasure it is that ye should do so. As 
therefore the Lord Jesus Christ did nothing without 
the Father being united to him, so neither do ye any 
thing without your bishop and presbyters. Study to 
be confirmed in the doctrine of our Lord, and of his 
Apostles, that so ye may prosper together with your 
most worthy bishop, and the well-wrought spiritual 
crown of your presbytery, and your deacons, which 
are according to God." "Epistle to the Magnesians. 

" Whereas ye are subject to your bishop as to Jesus 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 381 

Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner 
of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for 
us, that so believing in his death, ye might escape 
death. It is therefore necessary, that as ye do, so 
without your bishop you should do nothing; also be 
subject to your presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus 
Christ, our hope. In like manner, let all reverence 
the deacons as Jesus Christ and the bishop as the 
Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, 
and College of the Apostles. Without these there is 
no Church. I have received, and now have with me, 
the pattern of your love in your bishop, whose very 
look is instructive, and whose mildness powerful, 
whom I am persuaded the very Atheists themselves 
cannot but reverence. It becomes every one of you, 
especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the 
honour of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the 
Apostles. " Epistle to the Trallians. 

" The bishop is fitted to the commands, as the harp 
to the strings. As many as are of God and of Jesus 
Christ are also ivith their bishop. Although some 
would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet 
the Spirit, being from God, is not deceived; for it 
knows both whence it comes, and whether it goes, and 
reproves the secrets of the heart. I cried while I was 
among you, I spake with a loud voice, Attend to the 
bishop, and to the presbytery, and to the deacons. 
Now, some supposed that I spake this as foreseeing 
the division that should come among you. But he is 
my witness for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew 
nothing from any man; but the Spirit spake, saying 
on this wise, Do nothing without the bishop! The 
Lord forgives all that repent, if they return to the unity 
of God, and to the council of the bishop." Epistle to 
the Philadelphians. 

" See that ye all follow your bishop as Jesus 
Christ the Father; and the presbytery, as the Apos- 
tles; and reverence the deacons, as the command of 
God. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let 
the people also be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is 
the Catholic Church. It is a good thing to have a due 



382 LETTERS ON 

regard both to God and to the bishop; he that honours 
the bishop shall be honoured by God; but he that 
does any thing without his knowledge, ministers unto 
the devil." Epistle to the Smyrneans. 

" Hearken unto the bishop, that God also may 
hearken unto you. My soul be security for them 
that submit to their bishop, ivith their presbyters 
and deacons. And may my portion be together 
with theirs in God." Epistle to Polycarp. 

Now, I would ask any candid and impartial indivi- 
dual, whether language like this is employed in the 
New Testament respecting even an Apostle or Evan- 
gelist, or whether honour like this was claimed to the 
highest of the ministers of the Gospel in that early age 
from the members of the Church? Did any of them 
declare that he was moved by the Spirit to cry with a 
loud voice, " Attend to the bishop, and to the presby- 
ters, and to the deacons?" Or say that he would be 
security for those who did so? Or call upon them to 
look upon a bishop even as they would do upon the 
Lord himself? I would inquire farther, whether any 
thing like it is to be met with, not only in the Epistle 
of Clement, but in any of the remains of Christian 
antiquity for hundreds of years after the death of 
Christ, even when heresies abounded, and when it 
might have been considered as advisable to increase 
the influence of orthodox bishops? And if. he shall 
answer in the negative, I would submit it to his calm 
and deliberate judgment, whether it does not furnish 
a very strong and decisive proof, that these celebrated 
Epistles, to which Episcopalians appeal for one of 
their strongest arguments, but which are completely 
without a parallel among the early fathers, must have 
been interpolated by some one in a subsequent 
age, who was desirous to exalt the authority of the 
bishops? 

3. These Epistles contain some exceedingly errone- 
ous opinions, which I can scarcely believe would have 
been held by Ignatius. He affirms distinctly, that even 
the holy angels require to believe in the blood of 
Christ, that they may be saved from condemnation. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 3S3 

" Let no man deceive himself/' says he, in his Epistle 
to the Church of Smyrna: "both the things which are 
in heaven, and the glorious angels and princes, whether 
visible or invisible, if they believe not in the blood of 
Christ, it shall be to them to condemnation." And 
yet Paul declares in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that 
the Redeemer " took not on him the nature of angels," 
or rather, " laid not hold of them" to save them from 
misery, " but he laid hold on the seed of Abraham." 
He says also to the Church of Tralles, " My soul be 
your expiation not only now, but when I shall have 
attained unto God, for I am yet under danger." And 
he says to the Ephesians, " My soul be for yours, and 
I myself the expiatory offering for your Church of 
Ephesus, so famous throughout the world." But in 
what sense he could represent himself as an expiation 
to God, after he had been received into heaven, for 
men upon earth, without being chargeable with blas- 
phemy, I cannot comprehend. And in opposition to 
the original institution of marriage, the example of 
some of the Apostles, and the declaration of Paul, that 
"marriage is honourable in all," he approves of celi- 
bacy. " If any man," says he, in his Epistle to Poly- 
carp, " can remain in a virgin state, to the honour of the 
flesh of Christ, let him remain without boasting; but 
if he boast, he is undone. And if he desire to be more 
taken notice of than the bishop, he is corrupted." As 
we have no evidence, however, that this doctrine was 
introduced at so early a period into the Christian 
Church, I consider it as presenting a strong presump- 
tion that the Epistle must have been interpolated, and 
indeed the whole of it is pronounced by Usher to be 
spurious. 

I have only farther to remark, in the language of 
Ernesti, that " there are Latin words in these Epistles 
which no Greek writer in the first and second century 
used, but which began to be used by Greek writers 
in the seventh and eighth centuries. For instance, 
Sfo^-rw^, for which all the writers of those times used 
artooa?.>?s', as is done in the New Testament; axxm-ka, 
GtTtooi'Ka, and others which are found in no Greek writer 



384 LETTERS ON 

of that age."* And when Dr. Hammond had replied 
to this objection, that " many more Latin words occur 
in the New Testament than are used in these Epis- 
tles," Dr. Owen answered, that "there is scarce one 
but it is expressive of some Roman office, custom, 
money, order, or the like : words which pass as proper 
names from one country and language to another, or 
are indeed of a pure Greek original, or at least were 
in common use in that age, neither of which can be 
spoken of the words above mentioned used in the 
Epistles." And he adds, " I would indeed gladly see 
a fair, candid, and ingenuous defence of the style and 

* " Vocabula Latina quae sec. 1. et 2. nemo Graecus scriptorum 
usurpavit, sed quae demum a scriptoribus Graecis, sec. 7. et 8. usur- 
pari coepta sunt, v. c. JWggTwg, pro quo scriptores horum temporum 
omnes dicunt a.7roa-xKnc, ut etiam dicitur in N. T. ctx.x.i7rhx., cri7ro<rih<x,, 
et alia, quae apud nullum scriptorem Graecum hujus aevi reperiun- 
tur." 

He gives the following brief and candid account of the different 
writers who have taken opposite sides in the controversy about these 
Epistles: 

" Extitit vero etiam authentiae harum epistolarum defensor, Pear- 
sonius, Episcopus Cestrensis, qui vindicias earum edidit, imprimis 
contra Blondellum. Verum etsi hie liber bene est scriptus, tamen 
rationes ejus non sufficiunt. Acccssit etiam Hammondus in disserta- 
tionibus tarn supra laudatis quas imprimis Blondello opposuit. Oudi- 
nus in Comment, de Script. Eccles., torn. i. p. 86. quo etiam inde a 
pagina 89 usque ad 142 contra authentiam harum epistolarum dis- 
putat. Etiam La Roque opusculum de hac re scripsit, contra quern 
Bullus scripsit in defensione fidei Nicenae." (He happens to omit 
Bishop Beveridge.) "Quod autem ad controversiam ipsam attinet 
non potest negari plerosque viros doctos hac in controversial cupidius 
esse versatos. Nam Episcopalium multum intererat authentiam 
harum epistolarum defendere, ut dignitatem suam atque auctoritatem 
retinerent. Presbyteriani cupiditateabrepti saepe argumentis earum 
authentiam oppugnabant quae valere non possent; quam ob rem utra- 
que pars in hac disputatione modum excessit. Sed aliam quoque ob 
causam nonnulli coeperunt authentium harum epistolarum simplici- 
ter negare, nempe, quia in iis insunt diserta testimonia divinitatis 
Jesu Christi. Sociniani vero et Ariani divinitatein Christi negant, 
ideoque has epistolas simpliciter rejiciunt; imprimis cum Zwickerus 
unus ex eorum familia contendisset dogma de divinitate Christi esse 
novum, tribus prioribus seeulis ignotum, et in Concilio Nicaenoinven- 
tum. Verum ideo nonnulli de orthodoxis nimis cupide authentiam 
epistolarum Ignatii defenderunt, nee tarn incommoda quam potius 
utilitatem hujus defensionis spectarunt, in quo vehementer errant. 
Nam tali in re defendenda neque utilitas neque incommoda spectari 
debent, sed ut Veritas rei postuiat, judicandum est." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 385 

manner of writing used in these Epistles, departing so 
eminently from any that was customary in the writ- 
ings of the men of those daies ; for truly, notwithstand- 
ing any thing that hitherto I have been able to obtaine 
for help in this kind, I am enforced to incline to Vede- 
lius his answers to all the particular instances given 
of this nature, (barbarisms, rhyming expressions, &c.) 
this and that place is corrupted: this is fromClemens's 
Constitutions, this from this or that tradition; which 
also would much better free these Epistles from the 
word acynji, used in the sense whereunto it was applied 
by the Valentinians, long after the death of Ignatius, 
than any other apologie, I have as yet seen, for the 
securing of its abode in them."* But if, as appears 
from this and the preceding considerations, there is 
reason to believe that these Epistles have been cor- 
rupted, it destroys at once every thing like an argu- 
ment, which could be brought from their statements, 
even though they had been the most precise and ex- 
plicit, for diocesan Episcopacy. 

And, in short, I would remark, that even though 
we should waive the whole of these objections, and 
admit that these Epistles were perfectly genuine, the 
power which they ascribe to those early bishops by 
no means corresponds to that which is possessed in 
the present day by diocesan bishops. Not a word is 
mentioned about confirmation or ordination ; and all 
that is said of their ecclesiastical authority might be 
affirmed of them as the moderators or standing pre- 
sidents of the presbyteries of the Churches. The 
Bishop of the Magnesians is represented, indeed, in 
Archbishop Wake's translation, as the governor of 
that Church ; but the word governor is not in the ori- 
ginal. If the members of the Churches of Philadelphia 
and Smyrna are exhorted to have " a due regard to 
the bishop, and to refresh him, and attend to him," 
they are admonished " to attend also to the presbyters 
and to the deacons." If the Trallians are urged to 
reverence the bishop as God the Father, they are told 

* Preface of his Treatise on the Perseverance of the Saints, p. 11. 
25 



386 LETTERS ON 

also to reverence the presbyters as the Sanhedrim of 
God, and the College of the Apostles, his highest 
ministers. If the members qf the Church of Smyrna 
are warned to " follow the bishop as Jesus Christ, the 
Father," they are directed to " follow the presbyters 
as the Apostles." If the Ephesians are required to be 
subject to the bishop, the same subjection is demanded 
u to the presbytery." And if they are commanded to 
" obey the bishop," they are enjoined to yield similar 
obedience to " the presbytery with entire affection." 
If Sotio, the deacon of the Magnesians, is represented 
as " subject unto his bishop as the grace of God," he is 
said to be " subject to the presbyters as to the law of 
Jesus Christ." If the Trallians are described as "subject 
to the bishop as to Jesus Christ," they are exhorted to 
be " subject also to the presbyters as to the Apostles of 
Jesus Christ ;" and again, as they were to be " subject 
to their bishop as to the command of God, so likewise 
to the presbyters." And while the members of the 
Church of Smyrna are admonished in the Epistle to 
Polycarp to " submit to their bishop," the same sub- 
mission is required to the presbyters.* The eccle- 
siastical court of these Churches is uniformly described 
by a reference to the Sanhedrim, for it is expressly 
denominated " the Sanhedrim of God ;" and as the 
high-priest was merely the president of the ancient 
Sanhedrim, so the bishop in these Churches seems to 
have occupied only a similar place in the presbytery; 
and though nothing was to be done without his orders, 
as the head and representative of that body, yet no 
passage in the Epistles ascribes to him the smallest 
portion of power beyond what he might possess as 
the president or moderator of the council of pres- 
byters. 

And though he tells the Church of Tralles that they 
were to "do nothing without their bishop," and the 
Church of Smyrna, that "it was not lawful without 
the bishop, either to baptize, or to celebrate the 

* If the bishop is said to preside over the Magnesians in the place 
of God, the presbyters are represented in the very same paragraph 
as " presiding over them." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 387 

holy communion," or, as others render the word, " to 
make a love-feast," and says to them, " Let no man 
do any thing of what belongs to the Church separately 
from the bishop," yet he uses similar language in re- 
gard to the presbyters. Thus, in his Epistle to the 
Trallians, he says, " He that is without, that is, that 
does any thing without the bishop, and presbyters, 
and deacons, is not pure in his conscience." And he 
says to the Magnesians, " Neither do ye any thing 
without your bishop and presbyters." " I exhort you 
that you study to do all things in a divine concord ; 
your bishop presiding in the place of God; your pres- 
byters in the place of the Council," or " Senate of the 
Apostles." — "Let there be nothing that may be able 
to make a division among you ; but be ye united to 
your bishop, and those who preside over you, to be 
your pattern and direction on the way to immor- 
tality." In every point of view, therefore, the argu- 
ment brought from the Epistles of Ignatius for diocesan 
Episcopacy appears to me to fail ; and it is to a much 
later period in the history of the Church that you 
must look for a precedent for those extraordinary 
powers which you claim for your bishops. 

I would only further remark, that the primacy 
which is ascribed to the Ignatian bishop is perfectly 
consistent with the strictest equality between him and 
the presbyters, as in the case not only of the president 
of the Sanhedrim, which is referred to in these Epis- 
tles, but of the presidents of other courts; for, as Cicero 
remarks in one of his orations, " when many are equal 
in dignity, one only can occupy the first place."* 
And it is acknowledged by Whitaker, that "there may 
be primacy where there is no dominion, no pre-emi- 
nence in power, no prerogative of jurisdiction or au- 
thority."t And while the Ignatian bishop is repre- 
sented as teaching or preaching, which, according to 

* u Quum multi pares dignitate sint, unus tamen primum locum 
solus potest obtincrc." Pro Murcria. 

t "Priinatum esse posse ubi nullus sit dominatus, nullum im- 
perium, nulla onuiino jurisdictionis aut juris praerogativa." Con* 
trov. 4, quaest. 2, cap. 10. 



388 LETTERS ON 

Hooper, (Declaration of Christ and his offices, chap, iii.) 
" is the chief est part of the bishope's office, and most 
diligently and streightly comtnandid by God," though 
seldom performed by your bishops, the extent of his 
charge bore no proportion to that of the prelates in 
your National Church. It would appear that though 
there might be several congregations in Ephesus, yet 
they met with the bishop at the celebration of the 
communion, and received it along with him. " Let 
no man," says he to that Church, "deceive himself; 
if a man be not within the altar, he is deprived of the 
bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two be of 
such force as we are told, how much .more powerful 
shall that of the bishop and the whole Church be. 
He therefore that does not come together into the 
same place with it, is proud, and has already con- 
demned himself." And in the 20th paragraph he re- 
presents them as " breaking one and the same bread, 
which is the medicine of immortality," along with 
the bishop and the presbyters. In like manner he 
describes the Magnesians as "coming together into 
the same place" with the bishop and presbyters, 
" having one common prayer, one supplication, one 
mind, one hope, in charity and in joy undefiled." 
And he says to the Church in Philadelphia, " Where- 
fore let it be your endeavour to partake all of the same 
holy Eucharist, for there is but one flesh of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood; 
one altar; as also there is one bishop, together with 
his presbytery, and the deacons, my fellow-servants; 
that so, whatever ye do, ye may do it according to the 
will of God." Does this resemble the charge of a 
modern bishop? Could the whole of the communi- 
cants in the diocese of London, or Lincoln, or Dur- 
ham, or even Edinburgh or Glasgow, meet with their 
respective bishops and presbyters, and participate 
together in one place of the holy Eucharist? And 
amidst all that you say of the superior advantages 
which are possessed by the members of Episcopalian 
Churches, is it not evident from this fact, that they 
are in a very different state as to episcopal superin- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 389 

tendence from the primitive Churches, even in the 
age which succeeded that of the Apostles ? 

I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER XXIII. 

No allusion to the powers of diocesan bishops in the writings of Hermas. — 
Nor any notice of such ministers, or of the sign of the cross in baptism, 
or of confirmation, by Justin Martyr. — No reference to them by Irenaeus, 
who speaks of the ministers who maintained a succession of sound doc- 
trine from the time of the Apostles in the different Churches, alternately 
as presbyters and bishops. — The Churches of Gaul describe him as a pres- 
byter, nine years alter he was a Bishop of Lyons, in the Epistle which 
they sent with him to the Bishop of Rome, considering it as the most hon- 
ourable name which they could give him. — Irenaeus represents Polycarp 
as a presbyter. — ]\osuch powers as those of diocesan bishops ascribed to 
bishops in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, or Tertullian, or Ori 
gen. — Examination of the writings of Cyprian, whose language respecting 
the dignity of bishops, is frequently extravagant. — Proofs of his erring 
grievously on other subjects, so that it would not be wonderful if he had 
erred also on this. — Evidence, however, even from his Epistles and other 
writings of the early Christians, that presbyters both in his day, and for 
some lime afterwards, could not only ordain, but sit in councils and even 
preside in them. — Passages in Cyprian's writings which furnish more 
plausible arguments, not only for bishops, but for a Pope, than any which 
are to be found iu the preceding Fathers. 

Reverend Sir, — The references which occur in the 
writings of Hermas, usually denominated the Shep- 
herd, to the orders in the ministry, are so vague and 
general, that it is scarcely worth while to notice them. 
In his second vision he represents the old woman who 
appeared to him as inquiring whether "he had sent 
her book to the elders of the Church," and enjoining 
him to " write two books, and send one to Clement, 
(who is commonly understood to be Clemens Ro- 
manus,) and one to Grapte. For Clement was to send 
it to foreign cities, because it was permitted him so to 
do ; and Grapte was to admonish the widows and 
orphans; but he (Hennas) was to read in that city, 
(supposed by some to mean Rome,) with the elders of 
the Church;" from which it would seem that the pres- 
byters or elders were the chief ministers of the Church. 
And though he says in his third vision, that "the 
square and white stones" were, as he informs us, "the 



390 LETTERS ON 

Apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and ministers ;" 
yet it is evident that the term doctor applies to the 
bishops, and refers to another part of their duty; for 
in his ninth similitude he mentions only two orders of 
ministers, bishops and deacons, as placed over the 
Church, as its ordinary ministers, and consequently 
he would contradict himself if the term doctors in his 
third vision represented presbyters as distinct from 
bishops. "As concerning the "tenth mountain,'' says 
he in that similitude, "in which were trees that 
covered the cattle, they are such as have believed, 
certain bishops, that is, persons set over the Churches, 
(praesides ecclesiarum,) and then such as are set 
over the services, (praesides ministeriorum,) who 
have protected the poor and widows." And while 
he never elsewhere, as far as I have discovered, 
speaks of Apostles, and bishops, and doctors, and 
ministers, he repeatedly speaks of Apostles and doc- 
tors, meaning evidently the order of ministers, who 
were distinct from deacons. Thus, in similitude 4, 
sect. 16, it is said, "The forty stones are the Apostles 
of the preaching of the Son of God." In the follow- 
ing section they are said to mean "the Apostles 
and doctors of the preaching of the name of the Son 
of God." And in section 25, he speaks of those who 
"believed the Apostles, and certain doctors who sin- 
cerely preached the word." But his writings through- 
out are so destitute of precision, and so feeble and 
puerile, that it is impossible to derive from them any 
distinct information respecting the orders in the mi- 
nistry in the early Church. 

The next of the fathers was Justin Martyr, whose 
celebrated Apology for the primitive Christians, pre- 
sented to Antoninus Pius, according to Page, Basnage, 
and Lardner, in 139, and to Blondel, in 150, contains 
the following account of the ministers and worship of 
the Christian Church : " We bring him who is con- 
vinced, and who embraces our principles, to the place 
where the brethren, so called, are assembled for com- 
mon prayers, both for themselves, the illuminated 
(baptized) individual, and all others every where ; 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 391 

which prayers we offer with earnest desires that we 
may be accepted, and may be saved with an everlast- 
ing salvation. Prayers being ended, we salute one 
another with a holy kiss. Bread, and a cup of water 
and wine, are then brought to the president of the 
brethren, (jt£oe$uti\) and he receiving them, gives 
praise and thanks to the Father of all things, through 
the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and he con- 
tinues long in giving thanks that we are thought 
worthy of these blessings. The president having 
given thanks, and the whole people having expres- 
sed their approbation, those who are called among 
us deacons, (Biaxovoi,) give to those who are present 
bread and wine mixed with water, after they have 
been consecrated with thanksgiving, and carry them 
to those who are absent. This food is called among 
us the •Eucharist, of which no one is permitted to par- 
ticipate, unless he believes those things to be true 
which have been taught by us, and has been washed 
in the laver that is for the remission of sins and rege- 
neration, and so lives as Christ has prescribed."* 

And again, he observes, " Upon Sunday, all those 
who reside in cities and in the country meet together, 
and the writings of the apostles and prophets are read. 
And the reader having finished, the president ad- 
dresses them, and exhorts them to the practice of those 
things which are comely. We then rise and unite in 
prayer. And, as we have mentio»ed, when it is 
finished, bread and wine mixed with water are 
brought, and the president gives thanks, &c. Those 
who are wealthy, and willing, contribute as they are 
severally disposed; and it is deposited in the hands 
of the president, who assists orphans, widows, those 
who are in want from sickness or any other cause, 
those who are in bonds, and strangers who come from 
other places."! 

If this, however, was a faithful description of the 
constitution and services of the primitive Church in 

* "ETraTit 7rei<r$i£iTcti rev Tr^i^rccTi," &C. 

t fi T» tow h/uov /.iyo/j.tvn »//?gx Trwrcvv joltx. 7rokuc « a.yeous /utvovruv 
t7ri ro JtVTO," &.C. 



392 LETTERS ON 

the days of Justin, it does not present the faintest re- 
semblance of diocesan Episcopacy, either in the orders 
of its clergy, or its rites and ceremonies. The highest 
of its ministers was the president of a congregation 
which met for worship in one place, either in the cities 
or in the country, and not a word is mentioned of his 
ruling over presbyters, or of his being of a superior 
order. Nor is there the slightest reference to the sign 
of the cross in baptism, or to the rite of confirmation, 
as administered by the hands of any minister before 
those who had been baptized were admitted to the 
Eucharist. It follows, of course, that this celebrated 
Apology, though presented publicly to the Roman 
Emperor, and capable of being detected as to all its 
omissions, kept back an important part of the truth; 
or diocesan bishops, and these rites and ceremonies, 
did not then exist. Or, at all events, it is obvious, 
that to whomsoever you appeal in support of that 
order, and these unwarrantable additions to the di- 
vine institutions, it cannot be to Justin. 

Nor is the testimony of Irenaeus, the Bishop of 
Lyons, whose work against heresies, according to 
Baronius. was written in the year 180, and according 
to Blondel, in 185, at all more favourable to diocesan 
Episcopacy. He speaks, indeed, in some passages of 
the orthodox doctrine having been preserved in the 
different Churches by a succession of orthodox bishops 
from the time of the Apostles; but he never says 
that they iv ere invested with the poivers of diocesan 
bishops, nor mentions even a single instance in which 
any of them exercised them. And yet, till this is 
proved, no argument can be deduced in support of 
Episcopacy from his denominating them bishops. Be- 
sides, while he says in one place that the faith was 
preserved by succession of bishops, he tells us in an- 
other that it was preserved by successions of pres- 
byters; plainly intimating, as was formerly observed, 
that he considered presbyters as bishops, and that he 
looked upon the presbyter, who was called bishop by 
way of eminence, as nothing more, as Hilary says, 
than the president or moderator of the council of pres- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 393 

byters, or the first among his equals. Thus, while he 
says, (book iii. ch. 3,) "We can enumerate those 
who ivere constituted bishops by the Apostles in the 
Churches, and their successors, even to us, who taught 
no such thing,' 7 * he says, (book iii. ch. 2,) " When we 
challenge them (the heretics) to that apostolical tra- 
dition which is preserved in the Churches through the 
succession of the presbyters, they oppose the tradi- 
tion, pretending that they are wiser than not only 
the presbyters, but the Apostles also."t While he 
says, (book iv. ch. 53,) "True knowledge is the doc- 
trine of the Apostles, according to the succession of 
bishops, to whom they delivered the Church in every 
place, which doctrine has reached us, preserved in its 
most full delivery," he says in the 43d chapter, 
" Obey those presbyters in the Church who have 
succession, as we have shown, from the Apostles, 
who, with the succession of the episcopate, received 
the gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of 
the Father.":}: While he says, (book v. ch. 20,) 
" These are far later than the bishops, to whom the 
Apostles delivered the Churches ; and this we have 
carefully made manifest in the third book;"^, he says, 
(book iv. ch. 44,) " We ought therefore to adhere to 
those presbyters who keep the Apostles' doctrine, and 
together with the order of the presbyterate, (cum 
ordine presbyterii,) show forth sound speech. Such 
presbyters the Church nourishes; and of such the pro- 
phet says, I will give them princes in peace, and 
bishops in righteousness." While in his 3d book, ch. 3, 
he says, " The Apostles, founding and instructing that 
Church, (the Church of Rome,) delivered to Linus the 

* " Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt 
episcopi," &lc. 

+ "Cam autem ad earn iterum traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, 
quae per Huccessiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur provo- 
camus eos, 1 ' &c 

X "Quapropter eisqui in ecclesia sunt presbyteris obaudire oportet, 
his qui successionern habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum 
episcopatus successione, cbarisma veritatis certum," &c. 

(j " Onirics tniiii ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus 
Apostoli tradiderunt ccclcsias." 



394 LETTERS ON 

episcopate; Anacletus succeeded him; after him Cle- 
mens obtained the episcopate from the Apostles; to 
Clement succeeded Evaristus ; to him, Alexander; 
then Xystus; and after him Telesphorus ; then Hy- 
ginus; after him Pius; then Anicetus: and when 
Soter had succeeded Anicetus, then Eleutherius had 
the episcopate in the twelfth place ;" in his Epistle to 
Victor, Bishop of Rome, he represents the whole of 
them, as well as Victor himself, as presbyters. " Those 
presbyters, (in the Church of Rome,) before Soter," 
says he, "who governed the Church which thou now 
governest, I mean Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Teles- 
phorus, and Xystus, they did not observe it, (t. e. the 
day on which Victor observed Easter.) And those 
presbyters ivho preceded you, though they did not ob- 
serve it themselves, yet sent the Eucharist to those 
(presbyters) of other Churches who did observe it. 
And when blessed Polycarp, in the days of Anicetus, 
came to Rome, he did not much persuade Anicetus to 
observe it, as he (i, e. Anicetus) declared that the custom 
of the presbyters who ic ere his predecessors should be 
retained."* Unless, therefore, you maintain that 
Irenaeus did not know how to express his sentiments, 
and that his language is destitute of every thing like 
precision, I consider it to be plain, from a comparison 
of those passages, that he looked upon the bishops 
who succeeded the Apostles in the different Churches, 
till the age in which he wrote, merely as presbyters; 
or if there was any difference between them and the 
rest of the presbyters, it was that merely of those who 
were the moderators or presidents of the councils of 
presbyters in the several Churches. 

And this was not the opinion of Irenaeus only, but 
of the Churches of Gaul ; for when they sent him, 
nine years after he was bishop of Lyons, to Eleutherius 
of Rome, and gave him a recommendatory letter to that 
Prelate, the highest title which they bestowed on him 
was that of " a presbyter of the Church, n^a^vt^ov 
sxx^otas;" and the terms in which the presbyters 

* Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. v. cap. 24. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 395 

spoke of him were, that he was " their brother and 
colleague. '** Upon which Stillingfleet remarks, " that 
it seems very improbable, that when they were com- 
mending one to the bishop of another Church, they 
should make use of the lowest name of honour, then 
appropriated to subject presbyters, which instead of 
commending, were a great debasing of him, if they 
had looked on a superior order above those presbyters 
as of divine institution, and thought there had been 
so great a distance between a bishop and subject 
presbyters as we are made to believe there was: 
which is, as if the master of a college in one univer- 
sity should be sent by the fellows of his society to the 
heads of the other, and should, in his commendatory 
letters to them, be styled a senior fellow of that house. 
Would not any one that read this imagine that there 
was no difference between a senior fellow and a 
master, but only a primacy of order ; that he was the 
first of the number without any power over the rest? 
This was the case of Irenaeus. He is supposed to be 
Bishop of the Church of Lyons, — he is sent by the 
Church of Lyons on a message to the Bishop of Rome, 
when, notwithstanding his being a bishop, they call 
him presbyter of that Church, (when there were 
other presbyters who were not bishops;) what could 
any one imagine by the reading of it, but that the 
bishop was nothing else but their senior presbyter, or 
one that had a primacy of order among, but no di- 
vine right to a power of jurisdiction over his fellow 
presbyters ?"\ And the same, too, were the views 
which were entertained by Irenaeus of the rank of 
Polycarp, whom Episcopalians represent as a diocesan 
bishop; for after telling Florinus, whose heretical 
opinion he had been condemning, " this doctrine, such 
as were presbyters before us, (rte,£opvtee,o(> ire,o tuov,) 
and disciples of the Apostles, never delivered unto 
thee;" and after referring to Polycarp, he adds, "I 
am able to testify before God, that if that holy and 
apostolical presbyter (a7to$ouxo$ 7te,tapvtte,os) had heard 

* Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. cap. 5, who quotes the Epistle, 
t Ircnicurn, p. 311, 312. 



396 LETTERS ON 

any such thing, he would at once have reclaimed and 
stopped his ears, and after his manner cried out, Good 
God ! to what times hast thou reserved me?"* But 
if the highest rank which he assigns to Polycarp was 
that of a presbyter, and if the highest title which was 
given to himself by the presbyters of Lyons, in their 
commendatory letter to the Bishop of Rome, was the 
name of " a presbyter of their Church, and their brother 
and colleague," you will appeal in vain to him or to 
them to show that at that time diocesan bishops, or an 
order of ministers superior to presbyters, existed in 
the Church. 

The reference to the different orders in the ministry 
in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, which were 
published either in the end of the second or in the be- 
ginning of the third century, are so few and indistinct, 
that it is difficult to ascertain his opinion. You meet, 
indeed, with one passage, (Stromata, lib. vi.) where 
he mentions the three names of bishops, presbyters 
and deacons ; and with another in his Paedagogus, 
(lib. iii. cap. 12, p. 194,) where he puts presbyters be- 
fore bishops, and says, "very many commands relative 
to particular persons are written in the sacred books, 
some to presbyters, some to bishops, some to deacons, 
and some to widows." But he never points out the dif- 
ference between bishops and presbyters, nor represents 
the former as possessing exclusively the powers of or- 
dination, confirmation, and government, like modern 
bishops, nor says even a word from which it can be 
inferred that they were any thing but the standing 
moderators or presidents of the councils of presbyters. 
On the contrary, he represents himself, though he was 
only a presbyter, and all who were pastors, as govern- 
ing the Churches; for, says he, (Paedag. lib. i. p. 120.) 
" If we who bear rule over the Churches are shep- 
herds or pastors after the image of the Good Shep- 
herd," &c. And in the eleventh chapter of the same 
book, (p. 182,) he tells us that presbyters gave impo- 
sition of hands, whether for confirmation or mere bene- 

* Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 20. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 397 

diction does not appear; for, says he, " On whom does 
the presbyter lay his hand, (*u>i ya£ 7te,tofivT£e.o$ sTiittQr^i 
xsi%*, &c.) whom does he bless?" He says, (Strom, 
lib. hi.) that Paul declares it "to be necessary, that 
those should be appointed bishops, who, from ruling 
their own house, were prepared for ruling the whole 
Church ;" but he never specifies the extent of their 
powers; and though he speaks, (Strom, lib. vi.) of 
"a presbyter, who, though a righteous man, had not 
attained the chief seat on earth, (rf^oxa^S^a,") yet 
there is no evidence that it was any thing but the seat 
of the president, or moderator of the presbyters. Nay, 
as far as we can discover his sentiments, he appears 
to have thought there were only two orders, presby- 
ters or bishops, and deacons. Thus, in the third book 
of his Stromata, after quoting the words of Paul in 
1 Tim. v. 14, 15, he adds, " But he must be the hus- 
band of one wife only, whether he be a presbyter, or 
deacon, or layman, if he would use matrimony with- 
out blame." And in book seventh, he says, " Of that 
service of God, about which men are employed, one 
is that which makes them better, {^'ktiu.tixri) ; the 
other, that which is ministerial, (vTts^tixri.) Pres- 
byters maintain that form of service in the Church 
which makes men better; deacons that form which is 
ministerial. In both these ministries the angels, as 
well as he who is endowed with knowledge, serve 
God, according to the dispensation of earthly things." 
Nor is it any objection to this, that he says in the 
sixth book of his Stromata, as Episcopalians have 
often asserted, " Now, in the Church here, the pro- 
gressions (rt^oxortas) of bishops, presbyters, deacons, 
I think are imitations of the angelical glory, and of 
that dispensation which the Scriptures declare they 
look for who have lived according to the Gospel in 
the perfection of righteousness, walking in the steps 
of the Apostle. These men, the Apostle writes, being 
taken up into the clouds, shall first serve as deacons, 
and shall then be admitted among the presbyters, ac- 
cording to the progression in glory." If he con- 
sidered the progressions among the ministers of the 



398 LETTERS ON 

Church in the present world, as imitations of the two 
degrees of glory which shall be bestowed upon the 
angels in heaven, corresponding either to the higher 
services which they rendered to men upon earth, (as 
he says, book vii.) resembling those of presbyters, or 
to the lower services, resembling those of deacons, 
then it is plain that he must have looked upon these 
progressions among the ministers of the Church in 
this world as extending merely to the tivo offices of 
presbyters and deacons, the discharge of which led to 
the performance of these two kinds of service, which 
were copied by the angels. And as he does not speak 
of a third kind of service, or that of diocesan bishops, 
something like to which was rendered by the angels, 
it is evident that he could not intend to represent these 
prelates as a third order or progression in the Church 
on earth. And this is confirmed by the fact, that he 
describes the faithful ministers of the Gospel, after 
they are caught up together in the clouds, as minis 
tering first only as deacons in the heavenly temple 
and then promoted to be presbyters, after which they 
never rise to any higher order ; for if he regarded 
presbyters as the principal order in the Church in 
heaven, he must undoubtedly have looked upon them, 
as far as we can judge, as the principal order in the 
Church on earth. 

Little occurs in the writings of Tertullian bearing 
on the question. In his work against the heretics, he 
appeals to the successions of bishops in the different 
churches, from the age of the Apostles till his own 
day, in proof of the truth of the doctrine which was 
taught in the orthodox churches; but he does not spe- 
cify the powers which were exercised by these bishops, 
so as to enable us to judge whether they were of a 
superior order to presbyters. And the following is 
the account which he gives of the rulers of the Church 
in the end of the second century: "In the Church," 
says he, in his Apology for the Christians, (and I quote 
his words, as they are translated by Usher in his Re- 
duced Scheme of Episcopacy, that I may not be sus- 
pected of giving a turn to the passage to favour my 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 399 

own views,) " are used exhortations, chastisements 
and divine censure; for judgment is given with great 
advice, as among those who are certain they are in 
the sight of God; and in it is the chiefest foreshowing 
of the judgment which is to come, if any man have 
so offended that he is banished from the communion 
of prayer, and of the assembly, and of all holy fellow- 
ship. The presidents that bear rule therein are cer- 
tain approved elders" or presbyters, " who have ob- 
tained this honour, not by reward, but by good re- 
port;"* " who were no other," says the Archbishop, 
" as he intimates elsewhere, (de Corona Militis, cap. 
3,) but those from whose hands they used to receive 
the sacrament of the Eucharist." But if these presi- 
dents were seniors or presbyters, who were pastors of 
churches, and administered the communion to their 
members, and if he never mentions any order above 
them, though he denominates their moderator or 
chairman " the chief priest," who first had authority 
to baptize for the honour of the Church, and after 
him the presbyters and deacons, (de Baptismo, cap. 
17,) you will look in vain also to him for support to 
the cause of diocesan Episcopacy. 

The view which is presented of the orders in the 
ministry in the writings of Origen, who flourished to- 
wards the middle of the third century, are by no means 
clear. Sometimes he speaks as if there were only 
two orders, that of the presbyters or priest, and that 
of the deacons, whom he compares to the Levites. 
Thus, in his second Homily on Numbers, (torn. ii. p. 
203,) he says, " Let a man walk according to his or- 
der. Do you think that those who are appointed to 
the office of the priesthood, and who glory in the 
order of the priesthood, walk according to their order, 
and do all things which are worthy of that order? 
And in like manner, do you think that the dea- 
cons walk according to the order of their ministry? 
Whence, then, is it that you often hear men speaking 
ill of them, and saying, See what a bishop, or what a 
presbyter, or what a deacon! Are not these things 

* Apology, cap. 39. 



400 LETTERS ON 

said, when a priest or a minister of God is seen to be- 
have in a way which is contrary to his order, and to 
perform any thing unworthy of the priestly or leviti- 
cal order ?"* where he evidently represents priests or 
presbyters and bishops as belonging to the same or- 
der. And he says again in his fourth Homily on 
Joshua, (torn. i. p. 327,) " The priestly and levitical 
order is that which stands near the ark of the testi- 
mony of the Lord, in which the law of God is carried; 
and they enlighten the people respecting the com- 
mands of God, as the prophet says, Thy word is a 
lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths. This light 
is kindled by the priests and Levites."t And yet he 
mentions in other passages bishops, presbyters and 
deacons, as in his sixth Homily on Isaiah, (torn. i. p. 
635,) where he says, " No deacon, or presbyter, or 
bishop, taking a linen cloth, washes the feet of those 
who come to him."± And he refers to them else- 

* "Homo ergo secundum ordinem suum incedat. Putasne qui 
sacerdotio funguntur, et in sacerdotali ordine gloriantur," &c. 

t " Sacerdotalis et Leviticus ordo est qui assistit arcae testamenti 
Domini, in qua lex Dei portatur," &c. 

t u Nemo enim quibuscunque venientibus assumens linteum, dia- 
conus, vel presbyter, sive episcopus Javat pedes." 

He says indeed, in his fifth Homily on Ezekiel, torn. i. p. 715, 
" Those who are connected with the Church, and who have tasted 
of the word of God and transgress it, deserve to be punished; but it 
ought to be according to their different degrees in the Church. He 
who presides over the Church, and sins, must be visited with heavier 
punishment. A catechumen deserves more clemency than one of the 
faithful, a laic than a deacon, and a deacon than a presbyter. Omnes 
enim qui in ecclesia peccatores sunt, qui sermonem Dei gustaverunt, 
merentur quidem supplicia," &c. But still the language is general, 
and conveys no definite idea of the powers of the president; and does 
not even enable us to judge whether he was more than the president, 
if not of a congregation, at least of a council of presbyters. 

He says, too, when interpreting the word " nyovjuivi? y chief, in 
Luke xxii. 26," so I think he may be termed, who, "in the Church, 
is called bishop." But what the powers of that minister were he 
does not say; and sometimes he represents even a whole church as 
meeting in a private house. Thus, he says of Gaius, in his Commen- 
tary on Romans xvi. 23, that he was " a hospitable man, who not 
only received Paul and other Christians to share of his kindness, but 
afforded to the whole Church a place of meeting in his house. Eccle- 
siae universae in domo sua conventiculum ipse praebuerit." He says, 
too, " If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is subject to Joseph and Mary, 
shall not I be subject to the bishop, who of God is ordained to be my 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 401 

where in his eleventh Homily on Jeremiah, (torn. i. 
p. 679,) and eighth on Ezekiel, p. 726; as well as in 
his Homilies on Matt. xv. 19, (torn. ii. p. 29 and 88.) 
But whether bishops differed from presbyters any 
further than the first among equals, primi inter pares, 
and what was the extent of their powers, if they were 
of a superior order, I have not been able to ascertain. 
I intended to have examined at considerable length 
the different statements respecting the office of bishops 
which are to be met with in the writings of Cyprian, 
Bishop of Carthage, who flourished from a. d. 24S to 
a. d. 260; but as my remarks on the works of the 
preceding fathers have exceeded the limits within 
which 1 had hoped to restrict them, I must do it at 

father ? Shall not I be subject to the presbyter, who by the divine 
appointment is set over me?" But it is evident from what he says 
in his third book against Celsus, who had represented the Christians 
as excluding from their communion all learned and prudent men, 
that he understood by a bishop, a pastor or teacher. " It is evident," 
says he, " that Paul, in his account of those whom he calls bishops, 
describing what manner of man a bishop ought to be, requires that 
he must be a teacher, saying, that a bishop must be able to convince 
the gainsayers, to the end that by his wisdom he may stop the mouths 
of vain talkers and seducers. And as he prefers in his choice of a 
bishop one who is the husband of one wife, before him who has mar- 
ried a second time, and one who is blameless before him that is faulty, 
and a vigilant man before him that is not so, and a sober man before 
one who is not sober, and a modest man before a less modest, so he 
wills that a bishop duly constituted be apt to teach, and able to con- 
vince the gainsayers." And though he says, "there is a debt pecu- 
liar to widows maintained by the Church, a debt peculiar to deacons, 
and another peculiar to presbyters; but of all these peculiar debts, 
that which is due by the bishop is the greatest. It is exacted by the 
Saviour of the whole Church, and the bishop must smart severely 
for it if it is not paid;" yet Jamieson, in his Cyprianus Isotimus, 
remarks upon it, p. 410, "as if Origen could not judge, that he to 
whom the Church had committed the chief care of affairs was to 
account to God for more than were others. Might not the ancients 
think that the archdeacon was accountable for more than were the 
rest? Did they therefore believe that he, as contradistinguished 
from other deacons, was of divine institution ? Now, that there was 
pretty early an archdeacon, who had a power over the other dea- 
cons, appears plain from Hieromc's Epistle to Evagrius; and this he 
never doubted to be cither lawful or expedient." To what extent, 
however, the power of the bishop was superior to that of the presby- 
ters, or the power of the archdeacon to that of the deacons, docs not 
appear. 

26 



402 LETTERS ON 

present more briefly. And here I would observe, that 
the terms in which he speaks of it are certainly more 
lofty than those which were employed by any of his 
predecessors; for even Milner, who, I think, deline- 
ates his character too favourably, and extenuates his 
faults, is forced to acknowledge, that " there are some 
expressions savouring of haughtiness and asperity to 
be found in his writings; and that the episcopal autho- 
rity, through the gradual growth of superstition, was 
naturally advancing to an excess of dignity"* He 
speaks, for instance, of the episcopal office as " the 
lofty summit of the priesthood;! (though no such ex- 
pressions are applied in Scripture even to the office of 
an Apostle;) of the vigour of the episcopate, and the 
sublime and divine power of governing the Church ;"| 
of "the honour of the bishop, § and of the honour of 
his priesthood and chair ;"|| and he orders a deacon 
who had offended his bishop to " honour him, and 
with full humility or prostration, to make satisfaction 
to him;"1F while the Roman clergy, in their letter to 
Cyprian, say that it was time that the lapsed, " by 
rendering the honour which was due to the priest 
of God, should obtain for themselves the divine 
mercy."** Nay, he represents bishops as the succes- 
sors of the Apostles,tt and says, that " through the 
courses of times and successions the ordination of 

* Milner's Church History, vol. i. p. 457. 

t "Sacerdotii sublime fastigium." Epist. 52. 

\ " Actum est de episcopatus vigorc, et de Ecclesiae gubernandae 
sublimi et divina potestate." Epist. 55. 

§ "Nee honorem episcopi cogitantes." Epist. 11. 

|| " Nee episcopo honorem sacerdotii sui ct cathedrse reservantes." 
Epist. 12. 

II " Honorem sacerdotis agnoscere, et episcopo prajposito suo plena 
humilitatc satisfacere." Epist. 65. 

** " De honore debito in Dei saccrdotem eliciant in se divinam 
misericordiam." Epist. 30. In his fifty-eighth Epistle, he represents 
presbyters as united with the bishop in the honour of the priesthood, 
but what their portion of it was he does not say. " Qui cum episco- 
po prcsbyteri sacerdotali honore conjuncti." 

ft " Haec enim," he observes to Cornelius in his forty-second Epis- 
tle, " vel maxime frater et laboramus, et laborare debemus, ut unita- 
tem a Domino et per Apostolos nobis successoribus traditam, quan- 
tum possumus, obtinere curemus." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 403 

bishops, and the order of the Church, descends to us, 
so that the Church is constituted upon the bishops, 
and every act of the Church is regulated by the same 
rulers; that the Church is constituted on "the bishop 
and clergy, and all who stand steadfast in their Chris- 
tian profession;"* that "the bishop is in the Church, 
and the Church in the bishop; and that if any one is 
not in the bishop, he is not in the Church."! And 
while such is the place which is assigned to bishops, 
he tells us at the same time that the Church is found- 
ed on the Apostle Peter, and has only one ruler; and 
makes use of expressions, on which the Papists found 
very plausible arguments for the supremacy of the 
Pope, as the successor of Peter, and the one universal 
bishop, of which there is no example in the earlier 
fathers. Thus, in his seventieth Epistle, he says, 
" There is one Church founded by Christ the Lord, 
the origin and principle of unity, upon Peter.":): And 
again, in his seventy-third Epistle, " The Church, 
which is one, is, by the declaration of the Lord, found- 
ed also upon one who received its keys."§ Justly, 
therefore, might Whitaker say of Episcopacy, which 
had been adopted as a preventive of schism, (and 
Heylin observes, that he was a zealous defender of 
your Church against Cartwright,) that " the remedy 
was well nigh worse than the disease itself; for, as 
at the first, one presbyter was set over the rest of the 
presbyters, and made a bishop ; so afterwards, one 
bishop was set over the rest of the bishops. Thus, 
that custom hatched the Pope with his monarchy, 
and by degrees brought him into the Church." Nor 
will these extravagant expressions about the power 

* " Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordi- 
nate, et Eccles-iafi ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super episcopos consti- 
tuatur, et omnis actus Ecclesia^ per eosdcm prcepositos gubernetur. 
Ecclesia in episcopo et clero, et in omnibus stantibus sit constituta." 
Epist. 27. 

t " Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, et Ecclesiam in episcopo, et si 
quis cum episcopo non sit, in Ecclesia non esse" Epist. u'!). 

X " Una Ecclesia aChristo Domino super Petrum originc unitatis 
et ratione fundata." 

§ " Quae una est, et supra unum qui et claves ejus accepit, Domi- 
ni voce lundata est." 



404 LETTERS ON 

and dignity of bishops appear at all wonderful, when 
you consider what erroneous sentiments he express- 
ed on other subjects, and what corruptions he sanc- 
tioned in the early Church. He states it, for instance, 
to have been his own opinion, and that of a council 
of sixty-six bishops, at which he was present, that 
the baptism of infants was essential to their salvation ; 
for, says he, " as the Son of man came not to destroy 
the souls of men, but to save them, as far as depends 
on us, if it (salvation) can be procured for them, (in- 
fants,) no soul ought to be lost."* He thought, that 
while the blood of Christ obtained for men the par- 
don of the sins which they had committed before bap- 
tism, almsgiving procured for them the forgiveness of 
those sins which they committed after baptism, and 
delivered them from eternal death. " Almsgiving," 
says he, (and this is overlooked by Milner, in his 
laudatory account of Cyprian,) "frees from death; not 
that death, our liability to which the blood of Christ 
once abolished, and from which the grace of baptism 
and of our Redeemer has rescued us, but from that 
which has crept upon us afterwards through our 
sins."t He approved of unction after baptism; for, 
says he in his seventieth Epistle, " it is necessary that 
he who is baptized should be anointed, that having 
received chrism, he may become by unction the 
anointed of God, and have the grace of Christ in him- 
self."! He represents those who were baptized as 
brought afterwards to the bishop, that they might 
receive, through the laying on of his hands, the Holy 
Ghost, and might be perfected by his making on them 
the sign of the cross.§ He thought that the cup in 

* " Quantum in nobis est, si fieri potest, nulla anima est perdenda." 
Epist. 59. 

t " Eleemosyna a morte liberat, et non utique ab ilia raorte quam 
semel Christi sanguis extinxit, et aqua nos salutaris baptismi, et Re- 
demptoris nostri gratia liberavit, sed ab ea, qua? per delicta post mo- 
dum serpsit." Epist. 52. 

X " Ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus sit ut accepto 
chrismate, id est, unctione, esse unctus Dei, et habere in se gratiam 
Christi possit." 

§ " Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia bapti- 
zantur praepositis ecclesiae offerantur, et per nostram orationem ac 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 405 

the Eucharist should contain wine and water; for, 
says he, " the cup of the Lord is not water only, or 
wine only, but both must be mingled, just as it is not 
the Lord's body, if it is flour only, or water only, but 
both must be united into one substance, and become 
one solid piece of bread."* And he sanctioned the 
practice of praying for the dead; for he says, in his 
sixty-sixth Epistle, that " it had been determined by 
the bishops, his predecessors, that if any one appoint- 
ed a clergyman to act as a tutor for managing his se- 
cular affairs after his death, no offering should be 
made for him when he died, nor any sacrifice for his 
repose."~\ If he was capable, however, of teaching 
such errors, and countenancing and recommending 
such corruptions, it is certainly not more surprising 
that he should have deviated so far from the doctrine 
of Scripture, and from the whole of the fathers who 
lived before him, in his pompous expressions about 
the dignity of bishops. 

Still, however, it deserves to be mentioned, that 
whatever may be the lofty and unwarrantable claims 
which he advances occasionally in regard to the honour 
and authority of bishops, there is not a power which 
is possessed by the latter, that he or his corres- 
pondents do not acknowledge at other times might be 
exercised by presbyters. Thus he not only tells his 
clergy in his sixth Epistle, that from the very begin- 
ning of his episcopate he had resolved to do nothing 
from his own private opinion without their council 
and the consent of his people; % but in his fifth, which 
was written to them during his banishment, " he re- 

manus impositionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, et signaculo 
Dominico consummentur." Epist. 73. 

* " Calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi utrum- 
que sibi misceatur, quomodo nee corpus Domini potest esse farina 
sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit, et copulatum, et 
punis unius compage solidatum." Epist. 63. 

t "Ac si quis hoc fecisset non ofterretur pro eo, nee sacrificium 
pro dormitione ejus celebraretur, ncque enim apud altare Dei nierc- 
tur nominari in sacerdotum precc qui ab altari sacerdotes et minis- 
tros voluit avocarc." 

t " Quando a primordio cpiscopatus mei statuerim nihil sine con- 
eilio vestro, et sine consensu plcbis meae privata sententia gercre." 



40G LETTERS ON 

quests them to perform their own duty and his, that 
nothing which related either to discipline or diligence 
might be wanting."* In his seventeenth Epistle, he 
says, that he would not "prejudge the case of the 
lapsed, nor assume to himself the sole power of decid- 
ing respecting it, but would wait till he returned;"! 
and in his fifteenth, he mentions with approbation the 
presbyters and deacons of the Church of Rome who 
had exercised discipline, and displayed, as he expres- 
ses it, " the energy of the priesthood in restraining 
some who had rashly communicated with the lapsed." % 
In his thirty-third Epistle, he tells his presbyters that 
he was " always accustomed to consult them before 
he conferred orders," and apologizes to them for not 
doing it in the case of Aurelius, whom he had ap- 
pointed to be a reader.§ And in his fourteenth, he 
says to them, that " trusting in their affection as well 
as religion, of which he had sufficient evidence, he both 
exhorted and commanded them by that letter, that 
those of them whose presence there might be least 
invidious, and attended with least danger, might per- 
form his part in managing those things which the 
administration of religion required." || And in like 
manner, the presbyters of the Church of Rome who 
appear to have been without a bishop, say to the 
presbyters of the Church of Carthage, during Cyprian's 
exile, that " it was incumbent on us, (*. e. on both,) 
who seem to be set over the flock, to keep it in place 

* " Peto vos pro fide et religione vestra fungamini illic et vestris 
partibus etmeis, ut nihil vel ad disciplinam vel ad diligentiam desk." 

t "Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium et sententiam spec- 
tet, praejudicare ego et soli mihi rem communem vindicare non 
audeo," Sec. 

t " Presbyteris et diaconibus non defuit sacerdotii vigor ut quidam 
minus disciplinae memores, et temeraria festinatione prjecipites, qui 
cum lapsis communicare jam coeperant comprimerentur." 

§ " In ordinationibus clericis, fratres carissimi solemus vos ante 
consuiere, et mores et merita singulorum communi consilio ponde- 
rare" 

|| " Fretus ergo et dilectione et religione vestra, quam satis novi, 
his Uteris et hortor et mando, ut vos quorum minime illic invidiosa, 
et non adeo periculosa praesentia est, vice mea fungamini circa gerenda 
ea quae administrate religiosa deposcit." 



PUSETITE EPISCOPACY. 407 

of the pastor or shepherd."* And says Firmilian, the 
Bishop of Caesarea, an intimate friend and corres- 
pondent of Cyprian, who could not fail to be acquaint- 
ed with the powers which were at that time vested 
in presbyters, " All power and grace are established 
in the Church where elders (or presbyters) preside, 
who possess the power of baptizing and confirming, 
as well as of ordaining."! But if the presbyters of 
Carthage could perform not only their own duties, but 
those of Cyprian, during his long continued exile ;J 
and if it be stated by so distinguished a prelate as 
Firmilian, that presbyters in general possessed the 
powers of ordination and confirmation and were 
entitled to exercise them, it neutralises in a great 
measure the pompous descriptions of the episcopal 
dignity which are given by Cyprian ; and it not only 
proves that the powers of presbyters at that early 
period were of a superior kind to those of presbyters 
in Episcopalian Churches in the present day, but makes 
it extremely probable, that when he speaks of the 

* " Et incumbit nobis, qui videmur praepositi esse, et vice pastoris 
custodire grege'm," &,c. 

f " Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit, ubi praesi- 
dent majores natu, qui et baptizandi et manum imponendi, et or- 
dinandi possident potestatem." Upon which Rigaltius remarks, 
"Seniores et vere irgttrfiuTtqpt qui et baptizandi et manutn imponendi 
et ordinandi possident potestatem, ordine sic ab ecclesia constituta. 
Sed quare hie non fit mentio oiferendi, nisi quod tacite trium illorum 
potestate includitur ?" 

J "If there be no Church without a bishop," says Stillingfleet, 
(Irenicum, p. 376,) "where was the Church of Rome, when, from the 
martyrdome of Fabian, and the banishment of Lucius, the Church 
was governed only by the clergy? So the Church of Carthage, when 
Cyprian was banished; the Church of the East, when Meletius of An- 
tiocli, Eusebius Samosatenus, Pelagius ol' Laodicca, and the rest of the 
orthodox bishops were banished for ten years' space, and Flavianus 
and Diodoru3, two presbyters, ruled the Church of Antioch the mean 
while. The Church of Carthage was twenty-four years without a 
bishop, in the time of Ilunerick, King of the Vandals; and when it 
was offered them that they might have a bishop, upon admitting the 
Arians to the free exercise of their religion among them, their answer 
was upon those terms, Ecclesia Episcopum non delectatur habere ; 
and Balsainon, speaking of the Christian Churches in the East, deter- 
mines it neither sale nor necessary in their present state to have 
bishops set up over them." The whole of these Churches for that 
long period were governed by presbyters. 



408 LETTERS ON 

Church as established in the bishop, he regarded him 
merely as the president or chairman, and on some 
occasions, (if he alone ordained, like the president of 
the Sanhedrim,) as the representative of the presby- 
ters.* 

I cannot proceed further at present with this part of 
the subject, but shall only remark, that though bishops, 
after this, made gradual encroachments on the privi- 
leges of presbyters, the latter were allowed, even in the 
fourth century, to ordain priests and deacons, with the 
consent of their prelates, and bishops were enjoined to 
do nothing without consulting their presbyters. Thus, 
it is decreed in the thirteenth canon of the Council of 
Ancyra, held in the beginning of the fourth century, 
that " it be not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain priests 
or deacons, nor for city presbyters in another parish, 
without the permission of the bishop;"! evidently 
implying, that if he gave them leave they might confer 
orders. Origen, though only a presbyter, is said to 
have been chosen to preside at a synod, held at Phila- 
delphia, a. d. 327; and Malchion, a presbyter of An- 
tioch, presided in the second council held in that city, 
a. d. 269, in which Paul of Samosata was condemned.;}: 
Thirty presbyters sat in judgment along with three 
hundred bishops, in the year 295, on Marcellinus, 
Bishop of Rome, who had apostatized and burnt in- 

* The Rev. Mr. Sinclair remarks, after Sage, (Dissertation on 
Episcopacy, p. 82,) that " we read," in Cyprian's Epistles, " of bishops 
having a primacy, an absolute, arbitrary, sovereign jurisdiction, for 
which they are accountable to none but to our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who singly and solely has the power of preferring bishops to the 
government of his Church, and of calling them to account for the 
administration of it." But any one who is acquainted with the writ- 
ings of this father will perceive that it is one of those pieces of rhodo- 
montade about the power of bishops, in which he frequently indulges. 
Cyprian was aware that the Lord Jesus Christ called bishops to ac- 
count, even in the present world, before councils or synods, which 
were composed not only of bishops, but presbyters, and in which, as 
will be immediately proved, the latter occasionally presided, and 
caused them, when their opinions were heretical, or their conduct 
schismatical or immoral, to be censured, and even deposed. Instances 
of this are mentioned in his Epistles. 

t " Xa>£i7rta-x.o7rou$ jun «|'s/v«;," &.C. 

\ Letter from a Parochial Bishop to a Prelatical Gentleman, p. 39. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 409 

cense in the temple of Tsis and Vesta, and pronounced 
sentence upon him.* Thirty-six presbyters subscribed 

* tl Hic Marcellinus convictus est, quod thurificasset in templo 
Isidis et Vestae, per Gaium et Innocentium diaconos, et Urbanum, 
Castorium et Juvenalem, presbyteros et per alios testes. Et tandem 
in Synodo 300 episcoporum et 30 presbvterorum caput cinere con- 
volutum babens, Marcellinus, Episcopus urbis Romae, voce clara 
damans dixit, Peccavi coram vobis, et non possum esse in ordine 
sacerdotum, quoniam avarus me corrupit auro. Et subscripserunt 
in ejus damnationem, et damnaverunt eum extra civitatem dicentes, 
quia ore suo condemnatus est, et ore suo anathematizatus, accepit 
maranatha." See Carranza's Summa Conciliorum. 

" Marsilius Patavinus," says Jessop, in his Remarks on Episco- 
pacy, p. 55, " disputing 1 concerning the order of priesthood, or of a 
presbyter, (for they are all one,) and the power of the keyes to bind 
and loose, observeth out of the forementioned father, (Jerome,) the 
Church hath these keyes in the presbyters and bishops, and gives this 
reason why Hierome, speaking of this power of the keyes, doth men- 
tion presbyters before the bishops; because this authoritie belongs to 
a presbyter, as a presbyter primarily and properly. Praeponens in hoc 
presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur presbytero, in quantum 
presbyter, primo, et secundum quod ipsum. 

" Bartholomaeus Brixniensis and Joannes Semeca," says he, p. 56, 
" both glossators of the common law, doe maintaine and prove even 
out of it, that by right presbyters may excommunicate, though the 
bishops, by custom and prescription, have taken the power out of their 
hands. Ecclesiarum praelati de jure coramuni possunt excommuni- 
care, licet episcopi jam praescripserint contra multos praelatos. 
Gloss, in caus. 2, ques. 1, cap. 11. verbo Excommunicat. 

Not only have bishops taken away this power from presbyters, but 
if the following account of the way in which they exercise it in the 
Church of England be true, it is impossible to think of it without the 
deepest regret. " If there be any thing," says Bishop Crofts, in his 
Naked Truth, p. 58, " in the office of a bishop to be challenged pecu- 
liar to themselves, certainly it should be this, (excommunication) ; yet 
this is in a manner quite relinquished to their chancellors ; laymen 
who have no more capacity to sentence or absolve a sinner, than to 
dissolve the heavens or the earth. And this pretended power of the 
chancellor is sometimes purchased xcith a sum of money. Their money 
perish with them ! Good God, what a horrid abuse is this of the 
divine authority 1 But this notorious transgression is excused, as 
they think, by this, that a minister, called the bishop's surrogate, but 
who is indeed the chancellor's servant, chosen, called and placed there 
by him to be his crier in the court, no better; that when he hath 
examined, heard and sentenced the cause, then the minister forsooth 
pronounces the sentence. Just as if the rector of a parish church 
should exclude any of his congregation, and lock him out of the 
church ; then comes the clerk, shows and fingers the keys, that all 
may take notice that he is excluded. And by this his authority, the 
chancellor takes upon him to sentence not only laymen, but clergy, 
men also brought into his court for any delinquency ; and in the court 
of Arches sentences even bishops themselves.'''' 



410 LETTERS ON 

the canons of the Council of Elliberia, which related 
to excommunication, and not merely to doctrine; and 
twelve presbyters subscribed the canons of the Council 
of Aries, concerning the suspension of bishops. Nay, 
even the imperial law seems to intimate, that pres- 
byters might excommunicate as well as bishops. 
" We charge," it says, " all bishops and priests, that 
they separate no man from the communion before 
they show the cause, &c. And he that presumes to 
excommunicate, let him be put from the communion." 
Nov. Constitut. 125, c. 11. And though the Fourth 
Council of Carthage decreed, in their 35th canon, that 
" the bishop, when he was in the church, and sitting 
in the presbytery, should be placed on a higher seat," 
yet they required him " when he was in the house to 
acknowledge himself the colleague of the presbyters;" 
enjoining him, in their 22d canon, "to ordain no one 
without the advice of his clergy, and the consent of 
his fellow-citizens;"* and that "he should hear the 
cause of no one without the presence of his clergy, 
otherwise his sentence should be void."t Attempts, 
indeed, were soon made to circumscribe the powers 
of presbyters, and to increase the dignity and autho- 
rity of bishops, and to depress the power of the bishops 
of smaller sees, and subject them to the bishops of 
cities and to metropolitans. Thus it was decreed in 
the 6th canon of the Council of Sardica, that "no 
bishops should be settled for the future in villages 
and country places, lest the name and authority of a 
bishop should fall into contempt ;"% by the Council 

*"Ut episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non . 
ordinet, ita ut civium conniventiam et testimonium quaerat." 

t "Ut episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia clerico- 
rum suorum ; alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi nisi clericorum 
praesentia confirmetur." 

\ So rapidly did corruption spread, that the Council of Carthage 
say, in their twenty-fourth canon, that "their fathers had deservedly 
granted the pre-eminence to the episcopal throne in Rome, because 
it was the imperial city; xzi -yct^ tco Sqcvco <r»? 7r£z<rfeuTt£*c, &c. And 
Augustine, in his Quaestiones ex utroque mixtim, cap. 101, torn. iv. 
says, that for the same reason, the deacons of the Church of Rome 
were to have the pre-eminence above the deacons of the churches of all 
other cities.'''' "Idcirco honorabiliores habitos fuisse quam apud 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 411 

of Laodicea, (canon 57,) that "those bishops who 
were ordained in such places already, should do 
nothing without the knowledge of the bishops of 
cities;" and by the Council of Nice, a. d. 326, "that 
in every province there should be some one bishop 
reckoned chief and. supreme, who should be called a 
Metropolitan, without whose knowledge and consent 
(it was further determined by the Council of Antioch, 
a. d. 341,) the bishops of inferior cities should not 
ordain any bishop, nor do any thing of moment." 
Having deviated thus far from the arrangements of 
the Redeemer respecting the office-bearers of his 
Church as they are revealed in Scripture, patriarchs 
followed, and by and by they were succeeded by one 
supreme universal bishop. 

It has been asserted, I am sensible, that the ordina- 
tion of Ischyras, who had received orders from Collu- 
thus, a presbyter of Alexandria, which were pro- 
nounced invalid by the Council of Alexandria, proves, 
that presbyters were considered at that period as hav- 
ing no power to ordain. But it will be evident to any 
one who looks into the facts as they are stated by 
Blondel,* that it was for other reasons than his having 
been ordained by a presbyter, that the orders of Ischy- 
ras were declared to be uncanonical. The ordination 
took place in another diocese than that to which Collu- 
thus belonged, and where he had no right, according to 
the canons, to ordain any one. Colluthus, too, was in a 
state of schism, which alone would have vitiated these 
orders. Ischyras had no title, and orders conferred 
where there was no title were declared to be void. 
And Colluthus is alleged to have been made a bishop 
by Meletius, who also was in a state of schism ; for the 

caeterns Ecclcsias, propter ?na 'gnificentiam urbis Romanae, quae caput 
esse videbatur omnium civitatum." How different was this from the 
equality which, according to Jerome, ought to exist among all the 
ministers of the Church who are of the same order, and in particular 
among bi.shops. " Ubicunque," says he, in his Epistle to Evagrius, 
"fuerit epi.scopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopolis, sive 
Regii, sive Alexandria*', sive Tanis, ejusdem mcriti, ejusdemquc sacer- 
dotll esse; potentiam divitiarurn, et paupcrtatis huinilitatcm vcl subli- 
miorem, vcl inferiorem epiacopam non facere." 
* Apology, p. 317, 327. 



412 LETTERS ON 

clergy of Mareotis, when speaking of the ordination 
of Ischyras, say, that it was performed "by Colluthus 
the presbyter, making a show of being a bishop."* 
No argument, therefore, can be brought from the case 
of Colluthus, a schismatical presbyter assuming the 
character of a bishop, and ordaining another without 
a title, in a diocese with which he had no connexion, 
to show that presbyters, who were living in commu- 
nion with the Church, could not give valid orders, 
with the permission of the bishop, within their own 
diocese, to such as were not schismatics, and who had 
a title. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. 



LETTER XXIV. 

Reply to the argument for Episcopacy, that there was always imparity 
among the orders in the ministry under the preceding dispensations, and 
there ought still to be imparity under the New Testament Dispensation. — 
This proved to be a begging of the question, and that we must learn from 
the Scriptures themselves whether imparity was to continue among the 
ministers of the Gospel. — Dr. Raynolds acknowledges, that " those who 
had been most zealous for the Reformation of the Church for five hundred 
years before that event," did not believe in the divine institution of Epis- 
copacy. — Dr. Raynolds and Hooker admit this to have been the doctrine 
of the Waldensian Churches, and of Huss and his followers, who had no 
minister superior to presbyters. — This proved to be the highest order of 
their ministers by the testimony of their own pastors, and other autho- 
rities. — Calvin and Beza, according to Dr. Raynolds, Hooker, and Heylin, 
denied the divine right of Episcopacy, and this confirmed by their wri- 
tings. — The rest of the leading foreign Reformers rejected it, though 
Melancthon would have submitted to bishops, and even a Pope, for the 
sake of peace. — Zanchius unfairly claimed by Episcopalians as approv- 
ing of the powers possessed by their bishops — The foreign Protestant 
Churches without bishops, not from necessity, as Episcopalians allege, but 
from principle. — This proved by Jeremy Taylor. 

Reverend Sir, — Having finished the examination of 
the different arguments for diocesan Episcopacy and 
the apostolical succession, which have been advanced 
by its advocates from Scripture and antiquity, I might 
close this discussion, which has been already too pro- 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 413 

tracted ; but before I do so, I must advert very briefly 
to one or two topics on which they are accustomed to 
expatiate, and by which they endeavour to evade the 
force of our reasoning. They tell us, for instance, 
that there has always been imparity among the minis- 
ters of religion, for under the Mosaic Dispensation the 
high-priest was superior to the priests and Levites; 
the Redeemer, while he was on earth, was superior 
to the twelve and the seventy disciples ; and under 
the Gospel Dispensation, the Apostles were superior 
to the rest of the ministers of the early Church. But 
upon the principles of Presbyterians this imparity is 
destroyed, the different individuals in the standing 
ministry in the New Testament Church being placed, 
by their form of ecclesiastical polity, on a footing of 
equality. Upon this, however, I remark, that since 
they appeal to Scripture for the model of the consti- 
tution of the Christian Church, they are bound to fol- 
low it; and the only point which we are called to 
determine, is simply this, whether the Gospel ministry, 
as it is represented in its pages, is characterized by 
the principle of imparity or parity. It is not enough 
to tell us that there was imparity among the ministers 
of the Old Testament Church, but they must prove 
that they were to be the pattern of the evangelical 
ministry, and if they succeed in doing this, it will im- 
mediately follow that there is not a single Episco- 
palian Church, whether Protestant or Popish, on the 
face of the earth, as was formerly demonstrated, which 
resembles that Church in the orders of its ministry. 
Nor is it enough to refer to the superiority of our 
Lord, while he ministered upon earth, to the twelve 
and the seventy, for the Old Testament Church had 
not ceased to exist, nor had the New Testament 
Church been begun; and consequently any imparity 
which they may discover between him, and the Apos- 
tles and the disciples, prior to his resurrection, fur- 
nishes no warrant for a similar imparity among the 
ministers of the Church under the present dispensa- 
tion. All therefore that remains is the apostolic age; 
and unless they can prove that there was imparity, 



414 LETTERS ON 

not only at that time among the ministers of the 
Church, but that it was appointed to continue till the 
end of the world, they have no right to maintain that 
there ought to be imparity at present among the minis- 
ters of the Gospel. It is the prerogative of Christ, the 
only King and Head of his Church, to fix the arrange- 
ments respecting the Christian ministry; and we are 
neither to add to it a single order which he has not 
appointed, because we are desirous to preserve a 
similar imparity to what existed among the ministers 
of the Old Testament Church, nor to take from it any 
order which he has instituted, because we are partial 
to parity. There was certainly imparity among the 
ministers of the Church in the apostolic age; but it 
remains yet to be proved that it extended any further 
than between those of them who were extraordinary, 
and who were destined to cease after they had founded 
and organized the early Church, such as Apostles, 
prophets and evangelists; and those of them who 
were ordinary, and who were destined to continue 
throughout future ages, namely, pastors and teachers; 
Eph. iv. 11, 13. If the imparity, however, which 
existed in that age consisted only of the inferiority of 
pastors and teachers to Apostles, prophets and evan- 
gelists, and of the inferiority of the last of these three 
extraordinary orders to the two former, and of both 
prophets and evangelists to the Apostles; and if no 
evidence can be produced, (and I challenge you to do 
it, for it has never yet been done,) of the appointment 
of an order of ordinary ministers superior to pres- 
byters, you have no right to introduce a principle of 
imparity, which Christ has not sanctioned, into the 
Christian priesthood, and I am entitled to maintain 
that a principle directly and expressly the reverse 
ought to characterize the ministry of the New Testa- 
ment Church. 

It has been alleged, too, that the famous Walden- 
sian Churches, as well as the followers of Huss, be- 
lieved in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and that 
this was the light in which it was viewed also by 
Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Beza, and the other 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 415 

foreign Reformers, who were prevented only by ne- 
cessity from having bishops, as they had neither funds 
to support them, nor could they procure for them re- 
gular episcopal ordination. Nothing, however, can 
be more contrary to fact than the first part of this 
statement, if the testimony either of Hooker or Dr. 
Raynolds is entitled to any credit. The former men- 
tions " them of Walden," or the Waldenses, among 
those who thought that " the Apostles did neitlier by 
word or deed appoint" Episcopacy.* And says the 
latter, "wherto may be added, that they also who 
have laboured about the reforming of the Church 
these Jive hundred years have taught, that all pastors, 
be they entitled bishops or priests, have equall au- 
thority and power by God's word. First, the Wal- 
denses, (Aeneas Sylv. Hist. Boh. cap. 35, et Pigh. 
Hierarch. Eccles., lib. ii. cap. 10;) next, Marsilius 
Patavinus, (Defens. Pacis, pars 2, cap. 15;) then 
Wickliffe and his schollers, (Thorn. Walden. Doct. 
Fidei, torn. i. lib. 2, cap. 60;) afterwards Husse, 
(Aeneas Sylv. loco citato;) last of all, Luther, Calvine, 
Brentius, Bullinger, Musculus, and others, who might 
be reckoned perticularly, in great number, sith as here 
with us; both Bishops Jewel, (loco citato,) and Pil- 
kington, in the Treatise of Burning Paule's Church; 
and the Queen's Professors of Divinity in our univer- 
sities, (D. Humphrey in Camp, et in Duraeum Jesuitas, 
pars 2, et rat. 3, et D. Wliitaker, ad rat. Campiani, 
&c.) and other learned men, M. Bradford, Lambert, 
and others, M. Fox, Acts, &c, D. Fulke against Bris- 
tow, and Answer to the Rhemists, (tit. i. 5,) do con- 
sent therein : so in forreine nations all ivhom I have 
read treating of this matter, and many moe, (no 
doubt,) whom I have not read."t And this account 
of the Waldenses is confirmed, not only by Mr. Ac- 
land, who acknowledges that Episcopacy, which he 
considers as "the ornament of your Establishment, is 
no longer preserved among the Vaudois," but by Al- 
phonsus dc Castro, who says, that " after many years 

* Ecclesiast. Polity, book vii. p. 395. 
t Letter to Sir Francis Knollys. 



416 LETTERS ON 

the Waldenses revived this erroneous opinion, that 
there is no difference among priests."* And in the 
year 1530, when George Mauzel and Peter Latomus, 
two of their ministers, were sent to inquire into the 
doctrines of the Reformation, after stating to (Eco- 
lampadius that " they were the teachers of a poor 
people, who had existed for more than four hundred 
years, or, as their ancestors told them, from the days 
of the Apostles,"t they inquired whether there ought 
11 to he degrees of dignity among the ministers of the 
Gospel, such as the episcopate, the presbyterate, and 
the office of the deacon," and at the same time added, 
that "they did not use these degrees, having only 
presbyters;"! which agrees exactly with a still more 
early testimony recorded by Perrin, (ch. xiii. p. 25,) in 
which they say, " We hold that no person ought to 
presume to take that honour, (the office of the minis- 
try,) but he who is called of God, as Aaron; feeding 
the flock of God, not for filthy lucre's sake, or as hav- 
ing superiority over the clergy, but as being an ex- 
ample to them in word, in conversation, in charity, in 
faith, and in chastity." And with regard to Huss, I 
have only briefly to mention, that the fourth of the 
articles, on account of which de Caussis accused him 

* " Hunc eundem errorern post multos annos, ab inferis suscitarunt 
Waldenses dicentes nullum esse inter sacerdotes discrimen." 

t "Quandoquidem ut rem semel capias sumus qualescunque doc- 
tores cujusdam plebis indigae et pusillae quae jam plusquam quad- 
ringentis annis, imo ut frequenter nostrates narrant, a tempore Apos- 
tolorum, non tamen ut facile judicarunt quique pii, citra Christi in- 
gentem favorem commorata est." Sculteti Annales Evangelii Re- 
novati, p. 161. 

X " Primo an inter verbi Dei ministros debeant ordinari dignitatum 
gradus, ut puta episcopatus, presbyterii et diaconatus. His tamen 
gradibus inter nos non utimur." 

Speaking of the ordination of their candidates for the ministry, 
they say, " Consumpto autem hoc tempore, Eucharistiae sacramento 
impositioneque manuum discipuli praedicti suscipiuntur in presbyterii 
et praedicationis officium, ct hoc modo instructi ac edocti ad evan- 
gelizandum bini emittuntur. Verumtamen talis mos observatur ut 
omnino qui prius susceptus fuerit sequentem semper honore, dignitate 
et administratione praecedat eique magister constituatur." Sculteti 
Annales Evangelii Renovati, p. 161, in Von der Hardt's Historia Li- 
teraria. See, too, Ruchat's Histoire de la Reformation de la Suisse, 
torn. iii. p. 258, and Gerdesius's Hist. Evang. Renov., vol. ii. p. 402. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 417 

to the Pope, and he was afterwards condemned by 
the Council of Constance, was that he represented 
"all presbyters as having equal power; and asserted 
that the reservation of causes to the Pope and the 
bishops, and the ordination and consecration of the 
clergy, had been introduced through the avarice and 
ambition of their superiors."* And while Aeneas 
Sylvius asserts, in general terms, that both Huss and 
Jerome of Prague " had embraced the doctrine of the 
Waldenses," (Catalog. Test. fol. 1833,) it is acknow- 
ledged by Heylin, that their followers "had fallen 
upon a way of ordaining ministers among themselves, 
without having recourse to the bishop, or any such 
officer, as a superintendent;" and it. appears from 
their Formularies, that the excommunication of a 
minister was a power which was exercised only by 
a synod. " Excommunicato ministri non nisi toto 
synodo competit." (Ratio Unitatis Fratrum.) 

Nor is the view which is given by Dr. Raynolds, of 
the sentiments of the leading foreign Reformers, less 
just, though Whitgiftj Bancroft, Bishop Hall and 
others, represent them as admitting the divine right 
of Episcopacy. Luther, Melancthon, and the whole 
of the divines who subscribed the articles of Smalkald, 
declare expressly, that according to Scripture there is 
no difference as to power or dignity between bishops 
and presbyters; and the same opinion, as was for- 
merly proved, is distinctly avowed in their writings, 

* "Quarto circa ecclesiam errat, quod omnes presbyteros paris dicit 
esse i otes atis, ordinalionetn tt clericorum coitsecrationan dicit propter 
cupiditutem vel ambitionem superiorum adinventas." Historiea Nar- 
ratio de Fratrum Orthodoxorum Ecclesiis in Bohemia, &c. of Came- 
rarius, p. 174. And in an Epistola Elenchtica Anonymi Theologi in 
Concilio Constantiensi, addressed to de Alisa, one of the followers of 
Huss, and published l>y Von der Hardt, in his Magnum Constantiense 
Concilium, torn. iii., he refers to the disciples of the Reformer as hold- 
ing that opinion, and attempts to refute it. " Sic illi maxime peccant 
qui detrahant Papae dicentes, quod non Papa sit major saceidos, sed 
fatten cum ;.l is Bac< rdotibup, quia Apostoli vocabant se invicem fra- 
tres. Et sic illi errant, sicut quidam haeretici de sccta Graccorum 
qui errabant dicentes, quod Papa non sit majoris auctoritatis quam 
simplex sacerdos. And so they err, as certain heretics of the sect of 
the Greeks erred, who affirmed that the Pope had no more authority 
than a simple priest." 

21 



418 LETTERS ON 

and was never retracted. Melancthon, indeed, who 
was too ready to give up even great principles for the 
sake of peace, inserted a liberal statement about 
bishops in the Confession of Augsburg; and from a 
desire to conciliate the Papists, expressed the willing- 
ness of the Lutherans to submit to them to a certain 
extent, if they would only be subject to Christ, and 
not tyrannize over their brethren.* But, as Mr. 
Hickman remarks, "he complains repeatedly how 
much he was blamed for it by his brethren."! And 
we know that under the influence of these feelings, 
he declared his willingness not only to have diocesan 
bishops, but even a Pope, (though we never hear of 
it from Episcopalians;) and thought it might be use- 
ful, because it would unite all nations in the faith, if 
he would only take care that sound doctrine should 
be preached throughout the Church. When he sub- 
scribed, accordingly, the Articles of Smalkald, which 
were drawn up by Luther, we are told by Osiander, 
(Epitom. Hist. Eccles. p. 285,) that he did it in the 
following terms : " I, Philip Melancthon, approve of 
the preceding articles as pious and Christian. And 
in regard to the Pope, if he would admit the Gospel, 
I think that for the common peace of Christians, who 
are under him, or who shall in future be under him, 
we could allow him that superiority which he pos- 
sesses over bishops, as a mere human arrangement.''^ 

* In the conference between the Papists and Protestants, which 
took place at Augsburg, in 1530, Sleidan says, that "as far as re- 
lated to the power and jurisdiction of bishops, the Saxons, including 
Melancthon, were disposed to make large concessions, but the Land- 
grave of Hesse, the inhabitants of Luneburg, and others, did not 
approve of it. Sed neque Luntgravius, neque Luneburgici, neque 
Noribergenses probabant," &c. Upon which Osiander remarks, 
(Epitome Hist. Eccles. cent. xvi. p. 185,) "Melancthon seems to 
have been inclined to make some concessions to bishops as to juris- 
diction ; for he hoped, if this were done, that they would be less un- 
favourable to the pure doctrine of the Gospel ; but Philip did not 
consider that the wolf might change his hair, but not his disposition. 
Sed non cogitabat Philippus," &c. 

t "Certum est Melancthonem episcopis in Augustana confessione 
aliquid concessisse quo nomine quantum a fratribus incusatus fuerit 
ipse non in uno loco conqueritur." Apologia pro Ejectis in Anglia 
Ministris, p. 122. 

X " Ego Philippus Melancthon suprapositos articulos approbo, ut 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 419 

In his tract, however, upon order, which was written 
many years after the Augsburg Confession, as well 
as in his exposition of the 118th Psalm, and others of 
his works, he denies in the most pointed and explicit 
terms the divine institution of Episcopacy; and, as 
Seckendorf informs us, both Luther and he retained 
that opinion till the day of their death. And the 
view which is presented by Dr. Raynolds of the sen- 
timents both of Calvin and Beza is equally correct; 
for though, in consequence of repeated and earnest 
applications from the English prelates, and from the 
respect which they entertained for the English Go- 
vernment, as the principal protector of the Protestants, 
they expressed themselves favourably on different oc- 
casions respecting orthodox bishops, yet we have in- 
contestable evidence that they did not look upon 
Episcopacy as founded upon divine appointment, but 
regarded it merely as a human institution. Such, for 
instance, is the statement of Hooker respecting Calvin, 
for in a passage before quoted, he includes him among 
those who did not think that " the Apostles appointed 
it either by word or deed ;" and he was as likely to 
be acquainted with the opinion of the Reformer as 
any Episcopalian in the present day. Such, too, was 
the statement of Heylin, who wrote long after his 
time, and after the publication of the whole of Cal- 
vin's works; for he says to Burton, in a passage be- 
fore referred to, "if by your divines you meane the 
Genevian doctors, Calvin and Beza, Viret and Fa- 
rellus, Bucan, Ursinus, and those other of forreine 
Churches, whom you esteem the only orthodox pro- 
fessors, you may affirm it very safely, that the deriva- 
tion of episcopal authority from our Lord Christ is 
utterly disclaimed by your divines. Calvin had 
never else invented the presbytery, nor with such 
violence obtruded it on all the Reformed Churches; 
neither had Beza divided episcopatum into divinum, 

pios ct Christianos. Dc Pontifice autem statuo, Si Evangclion ad- 
mitteret, posse ei propter paceni, et communem tranrjuillitatem Chris- 
tianorum, qui jam sub ipso sunt, et in posterum sub ipso erunt supe- 
rioritatern in episcopos quain alioqui habet jure humano etiarn a nobis 
permitti." See, too, Gerdcsii Hist. Evang. Kenovat. vol. iv. p. 123. 



420 LETTERS ON 

humanum, and Satanicum, as you know he doth." 
And such, as is evident from the writings of Calvin, 
was undeniably his opinion. Thus, after remarking, 
in his Exposition of Philippians, i. 1, that "the term 
bishop was common to all the ministers of the word," 
he adds, that " from the corrupt signification of the 
word, (when it was appropriated to one,) this evil 
ensued, that under the pretence of this new designa- 
tion, one has usurped authority over the others, as if 
all the presbyters had not been colleagues called to 
the same function." "It was therefore a very wicked 
deed," says he in his Institutes, "that one man 
having got the power into his own hand which was 
common to the whole college (of presbyters,) paved 
the way to tyrannical domination, snatched from the 
Church her own right, and abolished the presbytery ', 
which had been ordained by the spirit of Christ."* 
And in his Commentary on the 20th chapter of the 
Acts, which was written shortly before his death, he 
says, " Concerning the word bishop, it is observable 
that Paul gives this title to all the presbyters of 
JSphesus ; from which we may infer, that according 
to Scripture, presbyters differed in no respect from 
bishops, but that it arose from corruption, and a de- 
parture from primitive purity, that those who held the 
first seats in particular congregations began to be called 
bishops. I say that it arose from corruption, — not that 
it is an evil for some one in each college of pastors to 
be distinguished above the rest, but. because it is in- 
tolerable presumption that men, in perverting the 
titles of Scripture to their own honour, do not hesi- 
tate to alter the meaning of the Holy Spirit. "^ 

* Lib. iv. cap. 11, sec. 7. 

f When one of the presbyters was elevated above the rest, he says 
in the same work, lib. iv. cap. 2, that it originated in an arrangement 
by the Church, and not in a divine appointment, " pro temporum ne- 
cessitate humano consensu inductum." And Whitaker observes, 
Controv. iv. quaest. 1, cap. 2, "Datquidem Calvinus fuisse olim in 
singulis ecclesiis episcopos singulos, in provinciis archiepiscopos et 
patriarchas, sed nullum his Calvinus aut episcopis aut archiepiscopis 
principatum vel dominatum in reliquos fratres tribuit." How much 
is this opposed to the representations of Calvin's sentiments, which 
are made by modern Episcopalians ! 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 421 

It is plain, not only from the testimony of Heylin, 
that similar sentiments were held by Beza, but from 
WhitgitVs letter to him in 1593, in which he reminds 
him that " the same year, (1572,) he writ to Mr. Knox 
against the degree of bishops, however they professed 
the Gospel, that the bishops brought forth the Papacy, 
that they were bishops falsely so called, and Were the 
relicts of Popery j"* as well as from the part which he 
took in drawing up the second Helvetic Confession, 
the declaration of which respecting the identity of 
bishops and presbyters is exceedingly explicit. And 
that this account of his views is strictly true, whatever 
Mr. Sinclair or modern Episcopalians may allege to 
the contrary, is undeniable. It is placed beyond a 
doubt, by what Bancroft says in his Survey of the 
pretended holy discipline, p. 39, where he tells us, (and 
if the Reformer had changed his opinion, it would 
have been known to that keen and haughty prelate, 
and he would have turned it to his advantage,) that 
Beza, in his account of the three kinds of bishops, 
asserts, that " all bishops, other than such as have an 
equality amongst them, and such ashealloweth and 
requireth that every minister should be, must of neces- 
sity be packing." And says Beza to Knox, "I wish 
you, dear Knox, (Epist. 77,) and the other brethren, 
to bear this also in mind, which is even now passing 
before our very eyes, that as the bishops begat the 
Papacy, so the pseudo bishops, the relicts of the Pa- 
pacy, will bring infidelity into the world. This pes- 
tilence let all avoid who wish the safety of the Church ; 
and since you have succeeded in banishing it from 
Scotland, never, I pray you, admit it again; how- 
ever it may natter you with the specious pretext of 
promoting unity, which deceived many of the an- 
cients, even the best of them."t 

* Strype's Whitgift, p. 408. 

t I quote his words from Professor Killen's translation of them, 
(Plea fur Presbytery, p. 64,) as I happen to have no opportunity at 
present to examine them in the original. 

Even in the most favourable statement which he makes ahout Epis- 
copacy, he speaks of it as a mere human institution. "Tyrannidis 
non insimulassc episcopos veram Christi rcligioncm profitentes et 
docentes, atque in hoc humano gradu ita se gerentes, ut eo ad aedi- 



422 LETTERS ON 

Nor were the sentiments of others of the Continen- 
tal Reformers less express and decided. Zepper, in 
his Treatise on Ecclesiastical Polity, represents the 
following as the only form of Episcopacy which ex- 
isted in the early Church. " Before," says he, " the 
tyranny of the Roman Pontiff arose in the Church, 
they chose, by the suffrages of all, one of the ministers 
distinguished by his age, learning, zeal, piety, ex- 
perience, and other spiritual gifts, who being received, 
according to the rule of the divine word, as a more 
noble member of the Churches, by a synod of minis- 
ters, and the pious magistrate, without assuming any 
primacy, superiority, and dominion over his colleagues 
and brethren, or claiming any exemption from the 
order or office of the ministry or the laws, under- 
took the superintendence or principal care of these 
Churches."* "That no one," says Conringius, "should 
be allowed to teach or perform the offices of religion, 
unless he has been ordained by bishops, is enjoined 
by no divine law."t "As long," says Damaeus, 
" as the apostolic constitution continued in the Church, 
the presbyters that laboured in the word and doc- 
trine did not differ at all from bishops. But after that, 
by the ambition of those who presided over other 
presbyters, and took to themselves the name of 
bishops, the apostolical form and discipline was abol- 

ficationem ovium sibi commissarum uterentur." De Minist. Evano-el. 
Grad. cap. 23. 

The Oxford Tractarians admit (Tract. 4, p. 7,) that Beza called 
the Presbyterian polity, which he considered as " the system handed 
down from the Apostles, a divine episcopate." 

* "Ante Pontificis Romani tyrannidem fuisse in Ecclesia, quod 
unum quendam ministrum aetate, eruditione, zelo, pietate, experientia, 
aliisque donis spiritualibus praestantiorem communibus suffrages 
elegerunt, qui secundum verbi divini normam, et leges illi consen- 
taneas a synodo ministrorum atque magistratu pio, tanquam nobiliori 
ecclesiarum membro, unanimo consensu et approbatione receptus sine 
primatus cujusdam, superioritatis et dominii in collegas etconfratres 
usurpations aut e corn muni ministerii ordine, officio, aut legibus ex- 
ceptione, atque immunitate, primariam ecclesiarum illarum curam 
humeris suis sustineret." Lib. ii. cap. 14. 

t " Quod nemini porro docere religiosa sacra liceat, nisi in id ab 
episcopis merit ordinatus, non praefecto ulla est divina lege insti- 
tutum."' Apologia pro Reformatione Evangelica, published by Ger- 
desius in his Scrinium Antiquarium, torn. vi. pars 2, p. 694. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 423 

ished, then the bishops began to be distinguished 
even from these presbyters that preached the word, 
and to these bishops, contrary to God's word, the 
whole dignity was ascribed, nothing thereof almost 
being left to the presbyters; which thing, and the 
ambition of the bishops, did in time ruin the whole 
Church, as the matter itself appears in the Papacy. 
And so the apostolic episcopate was abolished, and 
a human Episcopacy began, from which sprang the 
Satanic Episcopacy, as it is now in the Papacy."* 
" Upon the same account," says Chamier, " we may 
likewise say, that equality among pastors is better in 
a certain respect, to wit, for avoiding the tyranny of 
a few over the rest of their brethren, yea, of one over 
all. And how great an evil tyranny is, and how wide 
a door has been opened to it from the ambition of 
this presidency, experience has long since more than 
sufficiently proved. There is none who doubts that 
this custom (of investing one with the presidency) was 
introduced by good men, and with a good design; 
would to God not rather from carnal prudence, than 
by the direction of the Spirit."! And without quot- 
ing at length the opinion of the professors of Leyden, 
who say, (Disput. 42,) that " bishops are called such, 
not with relation to any supposed subordinate bishops 
or presbyters, but to the Church committed to their 
care, in which respect alone they have that title in 
Scripture, and not upon account of any prerogative 
or authority zohich one minister has over another;" 
of Saumur, who say, that " pastors being in the be- 
ginning constituted by the Apostles, governed the 
Church by common suffrages, (communibus suffragiis, 
communi solicitudine et cura;" (Thes. 7, de divers. 
Minist. Grad.;) of Walleus, who declares, that "in all 
the Scriptures there is no mention of such eminency 
and power of bishop over pastors ;" (de Funct. Eccl. ;) 
and of Arnoldus, who says, on Acts xx . 17, that 
" bishops and presbyters are not names of different 
gifts in the Church, but of one and the same office;" 

* Controv. 5, lib. i. cap. 14. 

t Panstrat., torn. ii. lib. ix. cap. 14, 



424 LETTERS ON 

I shall notice only further the sentiments of Zanchius, 
who is often referred to hy Episcopalians as a great 
admirer and zealous patron of their ecclesiastical 
polity. But it is certainly surprising, if this was 
really the case, that, as is stated by Maresius, Zan- 
chius should have declared " he could not but love 
the zeal of those who hated the very names of bishop 
and archbishop, being afraid that with these names 
the ancient ambition and tyranny, with the ruin of 
the Church, would return."* And the Reformer 
himself, in his exposition of the fourth commandment, 
gives the following account of the extent to which he 
could acknowledge the power of bishops, which dif- 
fers not only from that which they possess under 
every form of diocesan Episcopacy in the present day, 
but under every form of it which has existed in the 
Church for the last fourteen hundred years. "In 
course of time/' says he, " not long after the Apostles, 
a practice obtained by which one from among many 
pastors, presbyters and bishops was set over the rest, 
not as a lord, but as a guide or director to the rest of 
the seniors, (or rulers,) to whom especially the care 
of the whole of any particular church was committed, 
while the rest were his coadjutors and colleagues. 
This practice was adopted, as Jerome declares, that 
schisms and dissensions might be prevented, and the 
Churches might be preserved in a better state; there- 
fore this institution and practice of pious antiquity 
cannot be condemned, provided the bishop does not 
claim greater authority to himself than the other 
ministers possess, as Jerome rightly advises "^ But 

* Exam, Prim. Quaest. Theolog., p. 65. I quote the words merely 
to bear witness to his opinion, without approving of his feelings about 
the names. 

t " Successu temporis non ita multo post apostolos obtinuit con- 
suetudo, ut ex multis pastoribus, seu presbyteris et episcopis, unus 
praeficeretur reliquis omnibus, non tanquam dominus, sed ut rector 
reliquis senatoribus, cui imprimis commendata esset cura totius ali- 
cujus ecclesiae; reliqui illius essent co-adjutores et collegae. Con- 
stitutionem hanc factam esse ut tollerentur schismata et dissensiones, 
ut Hieronymus testatur, meliusque servarentur ecclesiae : idcirco 
damnari hanc piae vetustatis ordinationem et consuetudinem non 
posse ; modo plus sibi auctoritatis non usurpet episcopus, quam reli- 
qui habent ministri, ut recte monet Hieronymus." 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 425 

where is the bishop, either in your Church, or among 
the Scottish Episcopalians, or in the Church of Rome, 
or in any of the other Episcopalian Churches, who 
assumes no more power in ordination or jurisdic- 
tion than he concedes to his presbyters? And if, 
as you are well aware, there is not a prelate on the 
face of the earth who is content with the measure of 
ecclesiastical authority which Zanchius would give 
him, is it fair in Mr. Sinclair, in his Dissertations on 
Episcopacy, or any other advocate of your ecclesias- 
tical polity, after the example of Bishop Prideaux, 
to claim for it the sanction of this venerable Re- 
former? 

I consider it unnecessary to prosecute this inquiry 
into the opinions of these Reformers to a greater ex- 
tent, as it will be evident, I apprehend, from the pre- 
ceding quotations, as well as from the confessions of 
their Churches, that you will appeal to them in vain 
in support of the claims of diocesan Episcopacy. Some 
of them, after proving, by the most convincing argu- 
ments, that it was not instituted by God, but was an 
arrangement of the Church in the early ages, may 
have expressed a wish, that where it had long existed, 
and was associated with protestantism, it might still 
be preserved; and if any one would prefer a form of 
polity devised by men to that form of government 
which is delivered in the Scriptures, it would be wrong 
to deny him all the asssistance in maintaining Epis- 
copacy which he can derive from their testimony. 
Nothing, for instance, can be more precise and direct, 
than the declaration of the sentiments of Blondel re- 
specting the perfect identity of bishops and presbyters, 
according to the statement of Scripture. Thus he says 
in his Apology, " If we will listen to Jerome, accord- 
ing to Scripture and the ancients, a presbyter is the 
same as a bishop ; a bishop and a presbyter are one 
thing ; the same persons are called presbyters and 
bishops." Again, "Whoever, when intending to 
prove what kind of person ought to be ordained a 
presbyter, describes him as bishop, decides purposely 
that a presbyter is the same as a bishop. But the 



426 LETTERS ON 

Apostle does so in his Epistle to Titus. Therefore 
the Apostle, on purpose, decides that a presbyter is 
the same as a bishop. Whoever is called upon to 
feed the flock, and to perform the duty of a bishop, 
is really a bishop, and has a title to the name. But 
presbyters (Peter being witness) are required to do so. 
A presbyter, therefore, (Peter being witness,) is really 
a bishop, and is entitled to the name. Whatever was 
the government of the church at Philippi, Ephesus, 
Jerusalem, in Pontus, &c. during the age of the Apos- 
tles, was the form of government every where among 
Christians of all nations. But the government in each 
of these churches, during the whole age of the Apostles, 
was such, that the brethren in it were subject to a 
plurality of bishops and rulers, who governed it in 
common. Therefore the government of the Church 
among Christians of all nations was such, that the 
brethren in each church were subject to a plurality of 
bishops and rulers acting together, who governed it 
in common."* I could easily quote many similar 
passages from other parts of his Apology, and show it 
to have been his opinion, that even when bishops 
were first introduced, the only pre-eminence which 
they possessed was that of constant moderators, and 
that they had nothing like the powers of modern 
bishops. I am aware, however, that it was reported 
by Du Moulin, that Blondel " concluded his Apology 

* " Si Hieronymum audiamus, idem est presbyter, qui et episco- 
pus ; episcopus et presbyter unum sunt, iidem presbyteri et episcopi 
dicuntur. Quisquis qualis presbyter debeat ordinari probaturus, epis- 
copum describit, eundem presby terum qui et episcopus sit ex professo 
statuit. Apostolus Epistola ad Titum qualis presbyter ordinari de- 
beat probaturus episcopum describit. Ergo Apostolus Epistola ad 
Titum eundem presbyterum et qui episcopus sit, ex professo statuit. 
Cujuscunque est pascere gregem Dei et episcopum agere, is est veri 
nominis episcopus. Atqui presbyteri cujuscunque (Petro teste) est 
pascere gregem Dei et episcopum agere, &c. Qualecunque ecclesiae 
inter Philippenses, Ephesios, Hierosolymilas, Ponticos, &c. toto Apos- 
tolorum seculo regimen fu.it, tale inter Christianos omnes ubivis gen- 
tium fuit. Atqui tale ecclesiae inter Philippenses, Ephesios, Hiero- 
solymitas, Ponticos, &c. toto Apostolorum seculo regimen fuit, ut 
pluribus una episcopis, praepositis, &c. subjiceretur fraternitas, qui 
earn in commune regerent. Ergo tale inter Christianos omnes ubivis 
gentium regimen fuit, &c. Apology, p. 3 and 4. See, too, his third, 
fourth, and fifth Observations, p. 7, besides many other passages. 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 427 

with words to this purpose. " By all that we have 
said to assert the rights of the presbyter, we do not 
intend to invalidate the ancient and apostolical con- 
stitution (he calls sometimes what is ancient, apos- 
tolical) of episcopal pre-eminence. But we believe, 
that wheresoever it is established conformably to the 
ancient canons, it must be carefully preserved; and 
wheresoever by some heat of contention, or otherwise, 
it has been put down, or violated, it ought to be rev- 
erently restored." It is alleged, however, that he 
was prevailed with by some of the agents of the 
Westminster Assembly to erase them ; and upon Du 
Moulin's stating this to Blondel's brother in London, 
and requesting him to write to Mr. D. Blondel, and 
inquire whether it was true, "he did not fail" to do 
so; "and then," says he, "in three or four weeks 
after, he showed me a letter from him, wherein he 
remembered his love to me, and acknowledged that 
that relation was true." Now, upon this extraordi- 
nary statement, which is quoted continually by the 
advocates of Episcopacy, I remark, in the first place, 
that it is certainly very wonderful this letter was never 
published, which would have removed completely 
all doubt upon the subject; and as this never was 
the case, though Durel and others brought forward 
every letter from the foreign divines which favoured 
them in the least, it appears to me unaccountable. 
Besides, though Mr. John Blondel was living in Lon- 
don, not a single individual has ever been mentioned, 
even by any Episcopalian, as having seen this letter, 
but Du Moulin himself, whose zeal for Episcopacy 
was of no ordinary kind, and who would be one of 
the very last, if there was really such a letter contain- 
ing these words, to keep it a secret; and, 2d.li/, admit- 
ting that there was actually such a letter, though the 
world has never seen it, all that it would amount to 
would be merely this, to stultify Blondel, and demon- 
strate his inconsistency, but not to answer his power- 
ful and irresistible reasoning. I have showed you 
that he considered presbyters and bishops to be per- 
fectly the same in name and power during the whole 



428 LETTERS ON 

apostolic age, and declared that every Christian Church 
was governed at that time by a common council of 
presbyters, who were bishops! And as you cannot 
suppose that he believed in two apostolic constitutions 
existing at once, it is plain, that when he represents 
primitive Episcopacy by that name, he could intend 
only to tell us that it was ancient, according to a fre- 
quent use of that expression. Episcopacy, however, 
as described by him, when it was first introduced, was 
very different from yours, or that of the Scottish Epis- 
copalians ; and if he was really chargeable with such 
gross inconsistency as that which is imputed to him 
by modern Episcopalians, I shall leave it to you, or 
Bishop Russel, or Mr. Sinclair, to estimate the re- 
spect which is due to his opinion, and allow you, 
without a grudge, all the assistance which it can ren- 
der to your cause. 

Nothing, too, can be more groundless than the re- 
port which was formerly circulated by Episcopalians, 
and which has been repeated of late by some of the 
most eminent and influential of your prelates, that it 
was necessity alone, and not choice or principle, which 
prevented the Protestant Churches on the Continent 
from having diocesan bishops. So far was this from 
being the case, that it is not only affirmed, but proved 
by testimony which cannot be set aside, to have been 
directly the reverse. " M. du Plessis," says Jeremy 
Taylor, in his Episcopacy asserted, p. 191, "a man 
of honour and great learning, attests, that at the first 
Reformation, there were many archbishops and car- 
dinals in Germany, France and Italy, &c. that joined 
in the Reformation, whom they might, but did not 
employ in their ordinations. And, therefore, what 
necessity can be pretended in this case, I would fain 
learn, that I may make their defence. For the Dutch 
Church, let the celebrated Gisbert Voet be heard. Nos, 
says he, qui ordine illo episcoporum caremus, neque 
etiam indigemus, ab Anglicanis, aut Germanis ordi- 
nationem in forma petere semper potuimus; neque illi 
negarent. De Desp. Caus. Papatus, lib. ii. sect. 1, 
p. 110. He says, they could have had episcopal or- 



PTTSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 429 

dinations if they would, but thought they needed it 
not, and therefore would hardly have taken it kindly 
of any one, that would have pleaded for them that 
they would have had it, (as the present Bishop of 
London says,) if they could. For the French Church 
let Peter du Moulin's letter to Bishop Andrews be 
considered; where, excusing himself for not making 
the difference between bishops and presbyters to 
be of divine appointment, he pleads, that if he had 
laid the difference on that foundation, the French 
Churches would have silenced him; which doth not 
argne that concern among them for bishops, as would 
be requisite before such a plea from necessity were 
allowed them. And I have been credibly informed, 
that the French King was so earnest with them to ad- 
mit bishops among them, that they durst not desire 
an English bishop to preach there, though they ad- 
mitted him to communicate." Nor would there have 
been the smallest difficulty in procuring funds for the 
maintenance of bishops, either in France, where at 
one time a great number both of the nobility and 
gentry were Protestants; or in Holland, where it 
would have been the form of polity adopted by the 
State; or in Saxony, Prussia, or Hesse Cassel, as well 
as other countries, where it would have been sup- 
ported by the Sovereign; so that on what ground it 
can be alleged, as is done at present by some of the 
zealous friends of Episcopacy, who are anxious to ex- 
tend it among these Protestant Churches, that it was 
necessity alone which prevented them from estab- 
lishing it, I am at a loss to understand. And my sur- 
prise is increased, when I see it declared in the 18th 
chapter of the Helvetic, the thirtieth Article of the 
French, and the thirty-first Article of the Belgic Con- 
fession, that according to the Scriptures all the minis- 
ters of the word "have equal power and authority, 
(una et aequalis potestas et functio, eadem et aequali 
inter se potestate praeditos, eandem et aequalem turn 
potestatem, turn autoritatem omnes, habeant;") in 
the first Article of the National Synod at Embden, 
that "no minister is to exercise any authority over 



430 LETTERS ON 

another;" in the Wirtemburg Confession, that "a 
bishop and a presbyter are the same;" in the first 
Danish Confession, that " true bishops or priests are 
all the same;" and in the Articles of Smalkald, that 
"by divine right there is no difference between a 
bishop and a pastor or presbyter, and therefore there 
is no doubt that the ordination of fit ministers by 
pastors is ratified and approved by divine authority;" 
my surprise, I say, is increased, on the supposition 
that they were honest and upright men, that they 
would have introduced these statements into their 
public Formularies, or suffered them to remain, if 
nothing but necessity kept them from adopting dio- 
cesan bishops. 

I have only further to add, that as you have intro- 
duced one order into the Christian ministry, or that of 
bishops, for which you have never yet produced any 
warrant from Scripture, so you have changed entirely 
another order, or that of deacons. In the primitive 
Church they were instituted to serve the tables of the 
poor, (Acts vi.,) and no other office was ever assigned 
to them, though Philip, having executed the office of 
a deacon well, obtained for himself " a good degree," 
and was promoted to be an Evangelist. But in your 
Church, and that of the Scottish Episcopalians, they 
are allowed not only to preach, but to baptize, and 
are relieved, I believe, from the care of the poor. 
But this, as Dr. Whitby candidly acknowledges, is a 
deviation from the practice of the Apostolic Church, 
and an innovation on its constitution. " The an- 
cients," says he, in his sermon on Mat. xii. 7, " were 
so far from believing this, that they expressly forbade 
all deacons to baptize, and introduce this as a prohibi- 
tion laid on them on this very account, that baptism 
was an office belonging only to the priesthood." "A 
deacon," say the Apostolic Constitutions, "doth not 
baptize, or offer." And again, "it is not lawful for a 
deacon to offer sacrifice, or to baptize." And again, 
"we permit only a presbyter to teach, to offer, and to 
baptize." See this fully proved by Cotelerius, in his 
notes on the word ite.a,tsvoai, p. 206, 207, where he 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 431 

introduceth an old author saying, that if baptism, in 
case of necessity, be performed by the minor clergy, 
we expect the event, that what is wanting either 
should be supplied by us, or reserved to be supplied 
by our Lord. The baptism, therefore, of deacons, 
ivhich is now commonly in use among us, can only 
be of human institution. It was permitted only in 
the third century, from which time till the Reforma- 
tion even laymen were allowed to baptize in cases of 
necessity; and if any thing be wanting to that baptism 
in those cases, we have like reason to believe it will 
be supplied by our Lord."* What reason the doctor 
could have for entertaining that belief, when the ordi- 
nance of baptism is performed by a deacon, either in 
your Church or among the Scottish Episcopalians, 
while no power to administer it is given to him in 
Scripture, I cannot conceive ; and if he exercise a power 
not contained in the commission bestowed on him by 
the only Head of the Church, it suggests unquestion- 
ably very serious considerations to the members of 
all Episcopalian Churches, when they apply to him 
for baptism to their infant children. How you will 
be able to remedy that defect, I cannot tell. " We 
permit none of the clergy to baptize," say the Apos- 
tolic Constitutions, "but only bishops and presbyters." 
But you permit those who have no right to do it to 
administer that ordinance. The Russians formerly, as 
is mentioned by Reuss, used to re-baptize all who 
joined their communion;! and when the daughter of 
Christian the Fourth of Denmark, who had been 
betrothed to the Grand Duke in 1643, refused to be 
re-baptized, the marriage was broken off. But what 
will you do in the case of these individuals who were 
baptized by deacons in their early days, and who 

* u Their deacons," says Archbishop Whately, of the churches in 
the time of the Apostles, "appear to have had an office considerably 
different from those of our Church." — Essays on the Kingdom of 
Christ, p. 131. 

t "Olim," says he in his Dissertatio Historico-Theologica de 
Ecclesia Ruthenica, p. 335, " ne baptisma quidem extra suam et 
Graecorum ecclesiam susceptum lcgitimum ct validum arrogantis- 
sime opinati sunt," &c. 



432 LETTERS ON 

have never been re-baptized? I trust that Bishop 
Russet instead of repeating those trite objections to 
what he is pleased to denominate the office of lay- 
presbyters, which have been frequently answered, 
will direct his attention to this perplexing question, 
and point out the way in which baptisms received by 
innumerable individuals from the hands of men, who, 
as Jerome remarks, " were only the ministers of the 
tables," and who had no right to perform them, may 
be most effectually remedied. 

There are several other topics of considerable mo- 
ment, to which I was desirous to advert, but I must 
close this discussion. I hope that nothing which has 
been said in these Letters will be construed by any 
one as implying a doubt that I do not look upon your 
Church as a Christian Church, or that I am insensible 
to the great and important services which, especially 
at the period of the memorable Revolution, along 
with the Church to which I have the honour to 
belong, she rendered to the cause of our common 
Protestantism. I have noticed her defects, but I have 
far greater pleasure in acknowledging her worth ; 
and while you compare myself and the other ministers 
of the Church of Scotland, as well as the ministers of 
the other Presbyterian Churches in our native land, 
to the priests of Samaria, I concede most willingly to 
your sound and pious bishops and clergy the honour- 
able character of ministers of Christ. But how, upon 
your principles, you can claim that honourable cha- 
racter to yourself, or grant it to any other minister of 
your Church, or consider her as a Church, or cherish 
any sure and certain hope of the salvation of a single 
individual within her pale, or of a single individual 
in the Church of Rome, or of any individual on the 
face of the earth, I cannot perceive. May she not 
only seek, but attain that more thorough and impor- 
tant Reformation which was intended by Edward, 
and longed for by Cranmer, and of which there is an 
admirable outline in the Reformatio Legum ; which 
was drawn up by that great and illustrious prelate, 
and the other commissioners who were appointed by 



PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 433 

that young and enlightened Prince. Would to God 
that her Professors of Theology could adopt in some 
measure the language of Dr. Prideaux, when he said 
to James the First, a few years before his death, 
<• Within the last nine years Oxford has sent forth 
seventy-three Doctors in Divinity, and more than one 
, hundred and eighty-three Batchelours in that sacred 
science. I, as your Majesty's Professor of Divinity, 
had the honour of being concerned in conferring these 
degrees; and I can confidently affirm, that all these 
two hundred and fifty-three divines, and more, are 
warm detesters of Popery, remote from favouring 
Arminianism," though I have no wish they should 
add, "strong disapproves of Puritanism,"* if by that 
term be meant Presbyterianism. May purity of doc- 
trine distinguish her ministrations, and a spirit of 
piety and Christian benevolence extend its influence 
throughout all her parishes; that Ephraim may no 
more vex Juclah, nor Judah vex Ephraim ; and that 
while the ministers of Episcopalian and Presbyterian 
Churches differ from each other on certain points, it 

* " Intra proxime elapsum novennium, obstetricante pro modulo 
meo qualicunque professoris tui conatu," &c. 

If the directions contained in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasti- 
carum, prepared by Cranmer, Ridley, Knox, and the rest of the 
thirty-two commissioners of King Edward, were followed out, the 
clergy of the Church of England would, like the Scottish Presbyte- 
rian ministers, have ruling elders, or as they call them, lay elders, to 
assist them in exercising a kind and -prudent oversight of their 
parishioners. Would not this be a benefit? But what would Bishop 
Russel say of it, after the note in the Appendix to his Sermon on 
Lay Presbyters? 

Besides what Cranmer proposed in the Reformatio Legum, Strype 
informs us, that when the monasteries were proposed to be dissolved, 
11 the Archbishop is said to have counselled and pressed the King to 
it, but for other ends than the former had in view, viz. that out of 
the revenues of these monasteries the King might found more bishop- 
rics; and that dioceses being reduced into less compass, the dioce- 
sans might the better discharge their office, according to Scripture 
and primitive rules."— Life of Cranmer, p. 35. 
28 



434 LETTERS ON PUSEYITE EPISCOPACY. 

may be with feelings of mutual kindness and forbear- 
ance, and it may still be said, 

" See how these Christians love one another." 
I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, &c. 



THE END. 



W Ph 82 H 






;• J'S 



l' ^**. 






V 














w • - 



^c* V 



1 ^ % *™ 






A _o*a*> V .** >^i%A> * >^ 













,9 *>v 






• / V 



















4 O 

<y ... **• 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2006 



** o* 'imHQt* *b p reservationTechnologies 



q ^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^ m Thomson Park Drive 

r} Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

-0 (724)779-2111 



"+.<? 



*$+ <S* * ' 









■> if* 



t v ♦', 



» U V A V 



><°- 






°^ '/To < 









^o 






^^ *.• 



™v v 






°.vw" <*>* % * # s 3* <$>* 



'* _ •P'^K 



* H °* 




v% .£&:•."%. 






5*** 



*. - 



c°* ... 




• m o - v 






* .** °<* 'iMssSfy* v°-^_> - , 



^ .*£:.. ^ 



••"•' ^o' 














V> >•:•*-. ^ 







-It: V ; ^- 



jg^ MAR 82 I ;. "V^ *M&* * 4 ^ 

N.MANCHESTER. ,0 * SUf^ ! ^>V .°^ 

INDIANA 4""- 



o. •JTi« .o-' 



